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: Brazil 1, Uncategorized | Tags: 1924 Olympics, 1928 Olympics, 1930 World Cup, Andre Schurrle, Argentina, Austria, Belo Horizonte, Brasilia, Brazil, Carnaval, Copa America, David Luiz, Estadio Mineirao, Germany, Japan, Luiz Felipe Scolari, Mesut Ozil, Miroslav Klose, Netherlands, Neymar, Oscar, Ronaldo, Sami Khedira, Sao Paulo, Sapporo, Saudi Arabia, Thiago Silva, Thomas Mueller, Toni Kroos, Uruguay, West Germany, World Cup
In the most shocking semifinal in World Cup history, Germany built a 5-0 halftime lead and went on to humiliate host and five-time champion Brazil, 7-1, before a stunned and tearful partisan crowd of 58,141 at Estadio Mineirao.
Thomas Mueller ignited the rout with a side-volleyed goal off a corner kick in the 11th minute, and the opening barrage wouldn’t end until Sami Khedira’s strike in the 29th. In between, Miroslav Klose scored in the 23rd minute–his 16th–to pass Brazil’s Ronaldo as the all-time World Cup scoring leader; and Toni Kroos put the match away with goals in the 24th and 26th minutes.
With the Brazilian defense in shambles and on the verge of capitulation, German substitute Andre Schurrle plunged the dagger in twice more, in the 69th and 79th minutes. Brazil’s Oscar scored a consolation goal in the 90th, moments after Germany’s Mesut Ozil missed an easy chance that would’ve finished off the clock and made the final score 8-0.
The evening began in a frenzied atmosphere as Brazil fans tried to urge on their team, which was missing injured superstar Neymar and suspended captain Thiago Silva. After a high-octane start to the match, the Brazilian defense, led by David Luiz in Silva’s absence, collapsed, and following Schurrle’s second goal the yellow-and-green-clad spectators began to cheer every pass completed by Germany.
The loss was Brazil’s first at home in a dozen years and its first at home in a competitive match since 1975, a string of 62 games. It was Brazil’s heaviest defeat since a 6-0 loss in Rio in the 1920 Copa America to Uruguay, which would go on to win the 1924 and ’28 Olympic soccer tournaments and the first World Cup in 1930. It was the biggest margin of victory in a World Cup semifinal since West Germany’s 6-1 flattening of Austria in 1954. And it also was the biggest World Cup blow-out since an equally ruthless German side crushed Saudi Arabia, 8-0, in a first-round match in 2002 in Sapporo, Japan. Perhaps most galling to Brazilians: Germany is now the highest scoring nation in World Cup history with 223 goals, overtaking–yes–Brazil.
Comment I: The Germans may very well have spoiled the party that has been this wonderful World Cup. Hard to believe that the host nation will still be in a Carnaval mood for the remaining five days after this shocking fiasco. On the other hand, Germany may have erased fears that this will be the World Cup in which an outstanding team never emerges. The final is yet to be played, but most observers would now concede that the Germans, with a solid performance Sunday, would be worthy champions.
Comment II: For the sake of Saturday’s third-place match in Brasilia, root for Argentina to beat the Netherlands in Sao Paulo in the other semifinal. Otherwise, it will be the sullen Brazilians facing their arch rivals in a consolation game neither side wants to play, and what is usually an open, carefree exhibition of soccer could turn into something ugly.
Comment III: Another of the beauties of soccer on display in Belo Horizonte: No time-outs. Coach Luiz Felipe Scolari and his shell-shocked defense would have loved a two- or three-minute break to regroup midway through the first half, but this isn’t basketball or gridiron football. It was up to David Luiz and his mates to figure it out on the fly, and they could not.
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: Ian Darke, Uncategorized | Tags: Alvaro Pereira, Carlos Velasco Carballo, Daniel Sturridge, Diego Godin, England, English Premier League, ESPN, Group "D", Ian Darke, Joe Hart, Liverpool, Luis Suarez, Raheem Sterling, Sao Paulo, Steve McManaman, Steven Gerrard, Uruguay, Wayne Rooney
Uruguay, behind two goals by Luis Suarez, defeated England, 2-1, in a Group “D” showdown in Sao Paulo that kept the South Americans’ hopes alive and all but sent the winless English home.
Suarez, who led the English Premier League with 31 goals to spark Liverpool’s strong run last season but was coming off knee surgery, scored in the 39th and 84th minutes. The second came after an errant header by England midfielder Steven Gerrard–a Liverpool teammate–sent him in alone against goalkeeper Joe Hart. In between, Wayne Rooney, scoreless in nine previous World Cup appearances, shrugged off two near misses to produce an equalizer in the 75th. [June 19]
Comment: American TV viewers saw not only the likely exit of England after just two matches but the temporary exit of impartiality on the part of ESPN commentators.
Englishman Ian Darke has established himself as the Voice of Soccer in the United States with his knowledge, authority, wit and professionalism, but on this day he was too much the England fan.
Darke and analyst Steve McManaman went from restrained and nervous cheerleaders for 84 minutes to sharp critics after Suarez’s second strike to, in the end, resigned fans. What should have been, at most, recognition of yet another textbook example of a gritty Uruguayan team getting a necessary result dissolved into a eulogy for a not-so-good English team.
Two moments were telling. In the 29th minute, Uruguay captain Diego Godin, sitting on a yellow card for a handball in the ninth, hauled down Daniel Sturridge and was not issued a second caution. Darke was right in criticizing Spanish referee Carlos Velasco Carballo, but he wouldn’t let it go throughout the rest of the half. And in the 61st minute he initially dismissed an apparent head injury to defender Alvaro Pereira as cynical Uruguayan time-wasting. Only after replays showed that Pereira had been clobbered by the knee of England midfielder Raheem Sterling did Darke temper his earlier remarks.
Has Darke been impartial during his calls of U.S. matches? Of course not. His paychecks are signed by ESPN, and from the Landon Donovan game to what is now known as the John Brooks game, his calls have been enthralling. But while there may be many fans of the English Premier League in this country, most soccer fans here are not, and most of those have no allegiance to England.
Filed under: Bright start for CONCACAF, Uncategorized | Tags: Belo Horizonte, Brazil, Cameroon, Colombia, CONCACAF, Costa Rica, Croatia, Diego Forlan, FIFA, Fortaleza, France, Ghana, Greece, Group "A", Group "C", Group "D", Honduras, Japan, Joel Campbell, Luis Suarez, Marcos Urena, Mark Geiger, Mexico, New Jersey, Oscar Duarte, Sean Hurd, South Africa '10, Ticos, U.S., Uruguay, Wilmar Roldan, World Cup, Yuichi Nishimura
Costa Rica pulled off the first major upset of the World Cup, surprising Uruguay, 3-1, in Fortaleza in a Group “D” game.
Joel Campbell, Oscar Duarte and substitute Marcos Urena all scored in the second half to shock the Uruguayans, who reached the semifinals four years ago. Two of Uruguay’s heroes at South Africa ’10 were non-factors; Diego Forlan, still recovering from the flu, was substituted in the 60th minute, and Luis Suarez, 23 days removed from knee surgery, did not play. [June 14]
Comment I: The Ticos’ victory came 24 hours after Mexico defeated Cameroon, 1-0, to join Brazil–a 3-1 winner over Croatia in the tournament opener June 12–atop Group “A”.
The U.S. opens play Monday against Ghana and Honduras will face France on Sunday. But at the moment, it’s a bright start for CONCACAF. The Confederacion Norte-Centroamericana y del Caribe de Futbol has never had much respect from the rest of the world, which can point to the region’s thin World Cup record: the USA’s semifinal adventure at the very first cup in 1930, then three quarterfinal appearances by Mexico and one by the Americans since. At South Africa, Mexico, Honduras and the U.S. combined to win two games, lose five and tie four, with the Mexicans and Americans tumbling in the round of 16.
The victories by Costa Rica and Mexico may not mean much at a time when the combined FIFA rankings of CONCACAF’s four current World Cup finalists is a ponderous 94, but it’s temporary progress for a region still in search of a World Cup group seeding that doesn’t come by way of being a host (Mexico ’70 and ’86, USA ’94).
Comment II: Earlier in the day, Colombia, a dark horse favorite, pounded Greece, 3-0, in Belo Horizonte. The Group “C” game was played at breakneck speed, but it ended without incident.
That bodes well for the referee, Mark Geiger of New Jersey, who was assisted by linesman and fellow countryman Sean Hurd. With a dreadful penalty-kick call by Yuichi Nishimura of Japan in the Brazil-Croatia match and two Mexican goals erroneously called offside by Wilmar Roldan of Colombia the next day, another solid performance by Geiger could get him into the middle for the knockout rounds–a first for an American referee.
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