As I mentioned previously, FIFA noted in its bid evaluation report that should  the United States 2022 win the right to host the World Cup, “FIFA’s legal risk appears to be medium.”  The bids from Japan and Holland/Belgium were also marked as medium risk.  All three bids were given a rider after this wrist-slap and were told that the “experience in supporting the hosting and staging of major sports events” that the four nations all have is a boon.

Basically, this is the FIFA equivalent of a teacher saying to students, “finish your work by the time I get back or else.”  In football terms, FIFA said, “we’re not ruling you out of the bid because of these legal issues, but get it together.”

So what is this legal power that FIFA wants  from the USA, Japan and Belgium/Holland?

Predominantly, FIFA wants the country to implement legal guarantees that protect the economic side of the World Cup.  The most famous and well publicized example of this would be the 36 Dutch women who wore orange dresses with the name of a beer company to a erm, Oranje match against Denmark.  There women were thrown out of the match and arrested.

What law did they break?  Apparently it was part of the “2010 Fifa World Cup South Africa Special Measures Act” which, among other things, criminalizes commercial enterprise (if wearing predominantly orange dresses with minor logos that no one would have noticed had FIFA not had the dress-wearers arrested) in “an exclusion zone” or in “a designated area.”

These are some of the legal guarantees FIFA requires of host nations, but the economic side is not the only area that FIFA wants secure.  And though this is one of the most obvious sentences written about the World Cup, FIFA wants to protect its official World Cup sponsors so that the sponsors’ values remain ultra-high.  If Budweiser sees that the Dutch beer company Bavaria gets TV time for the low price of 36 tickets to a match, goes the logic, their sponsorship might not be so great when they renegotiate their partnership for 2018 and beyond (Anheuser-Busch is already locked into the 2014 World Cup).  I’m not sure I believe this, given that the World Cup is probably the most desirable sponsor partner in the world for a beer company, but still, FIFA must act to look like it cares.

Perhaps even more strangely, FIFA set up courts in South Africa specifically to deal with crimes related to the World Cup (crimes taking place in “exclusion zones” or crimes against FIFA property and employees, perhaps).

While the surreal arrest of the Dutch women may seem funny, they were essentially arrested for contravening a law that most people probably didn’t know was a full blown crime and not just some lightweight civic offense, if they knew it was anything at all.

I was in South Africa for several months prior to the World Cup, so the arrest of the Dutch women still seemed excessive but was less surprising given the general word of mouth gossip that floated around the country in the first half of 2010.  And while some of the stories were surely not true, many people claimed public offices where government services could be had (such as the post office or a notary) were taken over by FIFA for their official offices.  I’m not sure if this happened, and even if it did, it doesn’t strike me as extreme as setting up FIFA courts.

But, the general feeling was that FIFA had the entire government under its thumb and it could do seemingly anything to ensure a smooth World Cup.  This feeling reached a crisis point when FIFA began threatening South African journalists with a form of effective banning (revoking of credentials) should they be critical of the manner in which the World Cup was being run.

South Africa has one of the most recent constitutions on the planet and as such, broadly supports freedom of the press and free expression.  With such threats against FIFA-unfriendly journalists, people began to suggest that FIFA itself was contravening the South African constitution.

Ultimately  these issues were mostly forgotten when the football began.  It is unlikely that a nation will risk the prestige and economic benefit that hosting the World Cup brings by refusing to cooperate with FIFA.  But the question remains: for the build up to and duration of the tournament, does FIFA make unreasonable demands on host nations?  Should they be able alter the laws of a country so they can be more efficient in the protection of their sponsors?

My feeling is that FIFA goes too far.  While they no doubt have the right to set up commercial zones where only certain brands are sold, having “FIFA courts” and threatening to remove credentials from members of the press should not fall within FIFA’s authority.

Major sports events can be hugely profitable.  It’s not just FIFA who demand such legal guarantees; it occurs at events like the Olympics as well.  FIFA knows this and knows that most countries who seek to host the World Cup do not have a problem with event-specific laws, and so the practice will likely continue for World Cups in the foreseeable future.

The Three Lions are landing back on their home turf today and before they even deplane, the English media will be on them like hounds. Their defeated faces will be splashed across the tabloids with horribly corny puns similar to the one shown in Nike’s ‘Write the Future Ad’.

And the whole country is going to be grilling Capello, the players, FIFA, the location, and even the way the EPL is run. Right now, as I type this, England’s (least) favourite Italian is being questioned with more intensity than the Spanish Inquisition.  No surprise. England is going to look for a single scapegoat to bear their string of poor performances and German slaughter. We saw hints of this when Capello swiftly shut down John Terry’s all-team meeting and the English media immediately pounced on Terry in attempts of making him a backup scapegoat—just in case the English lost.

England, I ask you, why can there only be one reason why you failed to revive 1966? Because, really, aren’t a combination of all of the above named factors a reason why you lost?

Capello’s not perfect, that’s a fact. But no one is. Not even Maradona. Sure, he spent too much time trying to find the right starting XI, made some tactical errors, refused to pull out underperforming superstars like Rooney and barely acknowledged the team’s request for Joe Cole to play. But that’s his style. Capello does things his way and while critics may say that he should’ve adopted the less-harsh English method, it probably would have lead to a quicker downfall and probably not a qualifier.

The players are always the hardest and the easiest to blame. The so-called Golden Generation of footballers were supposed to pave the way to a victory that only dreams could concoct. But everybody underperformed. Nobody seemed to have the heart to play. Nobody seemed to want it after Robert Green’s howler. The whole team scored a total of 3 goals. Lampard had arguably the best game of any of the players, but even then, his semi-lackluster performance didn’t debut until the threat of elimination was made very real. Speaking of…

USA fans will forever lament the two discounted goals, but they won’t moan about it nearly as much as England will Lampard’s. The call to FIFA for the inclusion of instant replay and better refereeing will be louder from the British Isles than anywhere else. (Except maybe a jilted Mexico). And with FIFA staying mum on their ref’s performances, it’s not going to make matters any better. To be fair, this is probably England’s best argument for their loss, as an equaliser would have drastically altered the momentum of the second half and prevented such a blitzkrieg.

The environment is always one of the first to be blamed for poor performances: altitude change, a wintertime World Cup, poor pitch conditions, vuvuzelas, etc. I’m surprised the team hasn’t lashed out at the Jabulani ball yet…oh, wait.

The most outrageous argument that has come up thus far has been against the number of foreign players that are allowed to play in the EPL. English players are apparently not getting enough playing time and feel suffocated by the number of foreigners in the clubs. Okay.

When it comes down to it, England have only themselves to blame. Maybe Capello’s no WAGs rule had something to do with it…

As the first weekend of World Cup action draws to a close, the tournament has proven itself to be thoroughly captivating.  While the South African, USA and Ghana teams may have created the most unforeseen results with the ball at their feet, there have been some tremendously positive surprises apart from the players and teams.  Chief among them are-

A simply fabulous job by ESPN and ABC.  Four years ago there was visible anger among the US soccer community at the way ESPN and ABC produced their World Cup coverage – poor announcers, lousy in-studio talent and a purely amateurish approach to covering the world’s greatest sporting event.  This year’s coverage is a sea-change.  The in-studio talent has been made up of some of the most famous and insightful commentators on the soccer scene.  Among the best have been Ruud Gullit, Jurgen Klinsman, the eminently likable Steve McManaman and the surprisingly insightful Roberto Martinez.  Combined with Alexi Lalas and Bob Ley, they have been outstanding.  Furthermore, the play-by-play teams have been terrifically engaging, and in the US-England game the Martin Tyler and John Harkes partnership went surprisingly well.   The camera angles and graphic analysis has been great, and the entire production has walked that fine line of explaining the game to novices and giving great insights to aficionados.  Any fans expecting more from ABC/ESPN are just looking for reasons to take offense.

The referees have been spot-on.  Soccer is the toughest sport to referee in real time and the easiest to referee in slow motion.  In real time, the pitch is gigantic, the action is end-to-end, and the difference between fair and foul is made up of inches and fractions of a second.  Nevertheless, the referees have gotten everything exactly right so far.  From the disallowed Mexican goal for offside despite the defender on the goal line to the Serbian handball to the two red cards that have been handed out so far, everything has been on the money.  In the US-England game in particular, the Brazilian referee who had a reputation for sending players off waived just enough yellow to not interfere in the flow of the game but to make sure nothing got out of hand.  At some point in this tournament, the law of averages dictates that there will be a horrible, impactful mistake by a referee, but so far there can be no complaints.

FIFA and the South African organizers have done a special job.  When the World Cup was awarded to South Africa, many people raised an alarm.  They thought this was a politically correct decision and that South Africa had neither the stadia nor the resources to put on a tournament of this magnitude.  Now that the games are here, the entire affair has been virtually flawless.  The stadia are beautiful and Johannesburg’s Soccer City is simply a marvel.  The pitches have been perfect (how can you have perfect pitches in South Africa in winter and yet Wembley still looks like a motocross track?), and the fans have been as joyous and positive as you could ever hope.  Even the World Cup concert was great.  The entire scene looks glorious, and credit has to go where it is deserved – the excellent South African organizing committee and the team at FIFA who advised, guided, and effectively cajoled them towards success. 

I am sure that there will be events worthy of complaint at some point during this World Cup.  However, so far the entire operation has been as smooth and enjoyable as one could ever hope.

So they almost didn’t make it, but in the end won the last two games to make sure they would be part of the World Cup party. It all came down to the final match to get through though. They had to win in Montevideo for the first time in 33 years to make sure they finished 4th in the South American group. Argentina scrambling to finish 4th? Behind those giants of South American football Chile and Paraguay.

Maradona used 102 different players in his first 14 months and the players who didn’t make the squad are probably the biggest surprises of any of the finalised 23 man squads in the competition. No Cambiasso and Zanetti, both imperious for Internazionale this season. No Coloccini or Milito in central defence and no place for Real Madrid’s midfield tyro Gago. Surely 5 excellent players, but deemed surplus to requirements for Maradona in South Africa.

So, the manager cuts 5 players which most people would imagine should be in the Argentinian squad and a relationship with Juan Roman Riquelme that is non-existent at best. A qualifying campaign that almost ended in disaster, a tactical mess that sees the manager play 4 centre backs in defence and an inability to get Lionel Messi to replicate his domestic form. So why do they worry me so. I’ve got this nagging feeling that everything is going to click in to place come June 11th.

All common sense points to Argentina continuing the widely chaotic form into the World Cup. I doubt Maradona will change from his rigid 4-4-2 formation to let Messi play as he is used to in Barcelona’s 4-3-3 style, but then again, should Maradona build Argentina around Messi, or alternatively should the Worlds best player be able to adapt to a change in style?

So why do I feel that they could be genuine challengers? What is it that troubles me so? I thought they’d go all the way in 2006, but they fell apart against Germany and limped out of the competition. I’ll be honest, I have a secret admiration for Argentina, I do. I know, as an Englishman, it should be part of my patriotic make up that I should despise them, but I can’t. Maradona, handball aside, is still one of my favourite players ever. I boo Brazil and cheer on one of my countries fiercest footballing rivals.If England don’t win it, I want Argentina to do so. No really.

Yet even through rose tinted spectacles, I still think they were very,very fortunate to get here. Any team who loses a qualifying game 6-1 away from home, is flying by the seat of their pants in regards to being a challenger for the title. Tactically, it doesn’t work, some of the players who haven’t been chosen make me scratch my head and the worlds best player struggles in the system, but still they nag away at me.

They’re in a group that could hold a few surprises, with the effective if dull Greeks, the unfancied Nigerians and the passionate South Koreans. It is a group that could cause them problems, but still I think they’ll have too much to not get through. It’s the one group that I’ll be keeping a keen eye on, purely to see if Argentina can finally make this tactical disaster a beautiful spectacle.

Please leave me your comments and you can follow me at http://www.twitter.com/paulbestall

Since 1990, when Cameroon became the first African nation to reach the Quarter Finals of the World Cup, only one other African country has made it to the same point, Senegal in 2002. Despite the consistent leaps in quality, ability and tactical attitude, Africa has consistently failed to make the next breakthrough on the world stage. Critics can point to perhaps the continents best team, Egypt, not being in the finals, but Egypt traditionally struggle to qualify for the World Cup.

With continental advantage at hand, could Africa begin to consistently trouble the latter stages of the World Cup at last? It just seems unfortunate that only one of the six qualifiers this year looks capable of getting in to the last eight in South Africa. For me, the Ivory Coast stand head and shoulders above all the other African representatives even before they enticed Sven-Goran Eriksson to take the helm this summer.

As a squad, the depth and experience of the Elephants squad is clearly the strongest of the African nations in all parts of the field with talismanic striker Didier Drogba leading the team on and off the pitch. Add to that the options that players of the calibre of the Toure brothers, Guy Demel, Bakary Kone, Didier Zokora, Salomon Kalou and Aruna Dindane give you and you have a strong line up to match most sides in the tournament. The fact that they’ve found themselves in the same group as Brazil and Portugal and expected whipping boys North Korea shouldn’t fill them with fear.They can qualify from this group.

Under no circumstances is this the free flowing samba styled Brazil we’ve been brought up on over the last few years. Head coach Dunga has installed a pragmatic formation and tactical set that keeps the midfield anchored but allowing the wingers and fullbacks to bomb forward. It’s an interesting variation on the standard Brazilian style, more reminiscent of the 1994 winning side than the 2002 winning side.After they way they slumped out of the competition in 2006, they’ll be keen to be more clinical.

Portugal on the other hand can thank a favourable seeding in the European play-offs for getting to the World Cup. A side that seems to be on the way down, huffing and puffing its way through qualification. Despite the hype, Ronaldo, similarly to Messi, doesn’t seem to play as we know him at the international level. North Korea have the surprise element, but I doubt we’ll have a repeat of their amazing shock of the 1966 finals.

We’ve a situation where one of the 3 big teams in this group will be going home and with Brazil and Portugal clashing as their last fixture, the Ivory Coast will be aware that they could be in a situation that they could send home one of the Portuguese speaking nations. Would it be a big shock? Not really, if anything, Portugal are the ones who have it all to do to get through. The tournament needs the best African side to go through as the only other contenders, Cameroon and Ghana often flatter to deceive.

World Cups have no time for sentiment, but the Ivory Coast have a chance to write a little bit of history and each of the three teams will be desperate to finish top as I can’t see Spain not winning Group H. Eriksson will be at his 3rd World Cup and despite his faults, is still one of the most experienced managers in the world. Adding his pragmatic tactics to the Ivory Coast’s boundless exuberance could be a match made in heaven. Brazil and Portugal will be hoping the cocktail doesn’t taste as sweet in action.

Leave me your comments below and you can follow me on http://twitter.com/paulbestall

I have traveled in Southern Africa several times for business, and I am always struck when I talk to South Africans about Nelson Mandela.  When talking to black South Africans, they look at Mandela as a hero and the father of their country, but they also have a more nuanced view and remain frustrated at some of the pothole-type problems that plague everyday life in their emerging country.

However, when talking to white Afrikaners about their former President, there is no nuance.  I have seen more than one Afrikaner slam his hand down on the table and say with their quirky phrase, “Full stop- the greatest man this country has ever produced.”

So how did this “convicted” terrorist who spent 30 years in prison emerge from his cell to seduce the white minority and build the most stable, multi-ethnic and economically thriving democracy on the African continent?

In his terrific new movie Invictus, director Clint Eastwood tries to answer that question by focusing on the 1995 Rugby World Cup.  Based on John Carlin’s book Playing The Enemy,  Eastwood’s Mandela, played brilliantly by Morgan Freeman, is a leader who has studied the white Afrikaner closely.  Mandela knows that in order to build his nation, he must find ways to break down white fears over being a minority and get them to buy into their new South Africa.

Rugby, a sport vital to Afrikaner culture and a symbol of the Afrikaner ideal of grit and manliness, proves to be the vehicle that Mandela needed.  An amateur boxer in his youth, Mandela understood the power that sport can have. From his jail cell on Robben Island, Mandela taught himself the Afrikaans language and would listen to the incessant conversations his jailers would have about the sport.  Upon emerging from prison, he advocated that the 1995 Rugby World Cup be held in South Africa and that international rugby end its boycott against playing the Springboks, the name of the South African national team.

This was not an easy concession for Mandela to enforce.  To black South Africans, the green and gold Springbok jersey was a symbol of white oppressive rule, and many blacks wanted the team renamed and the colors changed.  Mandela, who understood the deep attachment whites had for the team, fought this, and in one of the best scenes in the film, made a surprise visit to a meeting of the new South African sports ministry to prevent this change.  His portrayal of Mandela’s speech to these sports officials, both compassionate and calculating, is Oscar-worthy stuff for Freeman.

On the other end of this equation is the Springbok captain Francois Pienaar, played by Matt Damon.  Pienaar is a man who has spent his whole life thinking about rugby, and has probably never had an opinion about politics one way or another.  However, just as he seduced his prison guards, his prison warden, the Minister of Justice and eventually the last white South African President FW De Klerk, Mandela convinces Pienaar to enlarge his vision and use the team to help unify the country.

The problem is the Springboks are not a great team.  After years of being boycotted out of the rugby community, the team is outclassed when it plays internationally.  However, inspired by Mandela, Pienaar pushes the team in its training and its attitude.  The team embraces the black community that once feared it, and by the time the World Cup comes, the ’Boks are prepared and the country is behind them.

It is at this point that the film takes an extra pass or two rather than properly running the ball across the line for a score.  The rugby scenes themselves run long, especially the final game between the Springboks and the New Zealand All-Blacks.  Rugby is a difficult game to portray on film – it is better seen from afar than up close – and the actual final game was a tough slow war of attrition with few big plays.  Eastwood captures all the drama leading up to the game, including Mandela’s famous walk onto the field wearing Pienaar’s #6 Springbok jersey and the nearly all-white crowd chanting “Nelson, Nelson…”  However, the game itself seems to go on, and the ending for most movie goers was never in doubt.

The South Africa that is preparing to host the 2010 FIFA World Cup is a different place than the South Africa portrayed by Eastwood, Freeman and Damon.  It is a calmer, less dramatic and more business-like place.  The daily papers are more concerned with the value of the Rand than multi racial reconciliation.  For many South Africans, this summer’s World Cup will be a triumph of commerce rather than sport.  That is all as it should be.  Thanks to Mandela, Pienaar and the millions who put aside their grievances and embraced their new country, the life and death drama can just occur on the field instead of around it.

The controversial handball by Frenchman Thierry Henry is still causing shockwaves despite much of the sparks and debates calming down after FIFA ruled out any possibility of replaying the match. In addition, FIFA obviously refused to grant Ireland an extra spot in South Africa. Adding the Republic of Ireland to the World Cup draw would make no sense (no disrespect to Ireland and its fans). Making changes would imply having to rework the format for the World Cup which is time consuming and unacceptable. Some would argue if Ireland were allowed, then Costa Rica must be included in South Africa too as some feel Uruguay scored an illegitimate goal from an offside position.

Irrespective of FIFA’s stance and public opinion, rules cannot be bent or changed at the request of one or a couple of entities. The wise thing was for FIFA to order the France-Ireland encounter to be replayed based on a blatant case of injustice. No team should be allowed to go through to South Africa because it feels unjustly eliminated. A quick glance back at World Cup 2002 would show the South Koreans received one favour after another to get positive results against Portugal, Italy and then Spain while pushing through to the World Cup semi-finals. Did Portugal, Italy or Spain decide to withdraw, stop the match or officially ask for a replay? Without diminishing the current situation, a review of some of the mind-boggling decisions which transpired during the games between the Koreans and the three European sides reveals mistakes happen whether intentionally or not.

The best solution would be to reprimand and hold Henry accountable by suspending him. Recently FIFA President Sepp Blatter disclosed information pertaining to the situation as he admitted there will be a review of Henry’s conduct by the disciplinary committee. The question remains whether Henry will be suspended in the course of the season (Barcelona is not concerned with this so it ought to be a ban on the national level) or for a number of matches with the French team since the misconduct occurred on duty with France. Since the Irish feel they were inappropriately eliminated, then should FIFA suspend the main culprit for the duration of the event in South Africa as a small remedy for the unjust ousting of the Irish?

FIFA’s committee must carefully study the situation before taking any further action which could potentially create another furor instead of trying to address some of the controversy created by Henry’s handball. One thing springs to mind: Henry admitted to the handball after and not during the match. As such, there is no reason not to punish the French forward for his actions during the match.

In Serie A, video replay is used by the disciplinary arm of the ruling body to punish those responsible for major incidents which were not caught by the referee during the course of the match. No obvious rule stands against doing the same with Henry.

World Cup fans, prepare to hear this song ad nauseum for the next seven months.  K’naan’s “Wavin’ Flag” is the Official Anthem of World Cup 2010.

At the Olympic Stadium, Greece drew 0-0 with Ukraine in the first leg of their World Cup playoff. Tomorrow night, the 2nd leg with take place at another Olympic Stadium, this time in Kyiv. It really should be a tough affair with it all to play for and a place in the tournament in South Africa. Sports retailers may favour a Greece win here, due to them being more likely to become a big seller for World Cup shirts. Before we look at the two teams in more depth, let’s take a look at their qualifying performance in the group stage.

Ukraine’s home record in World Cup qualifying was extremely impressive and it is something Greece should be concerned with. Ukraine won 4 out of their 5 home games in Group 6, beating Belarus, Kazakhstan, Andorra and England, and drew the other game 0-0 with Croatia. Greece will have to watch out for Ukraine captain Andriy Shevchenko, who has scored 43 goals in 93 international appearances.

Those in a Greece World Cup jersey have had a reasonable, but not very impressive away record in World Cup qualifying, winning 2 games, drawing 2 games and losing one to Switzerland. They will be relying on the same spirit and teamwork that helped them win Euro 2004 and with two prolific strikers in Angelos Charisteas and Theofanis Gekas. Both countries have only made it to the World Cup on one occasion, so both will be desperate to get another taste for the competition.

This is bound to be another close game between these two sides, however, with Ukraine having home field advantage and an very good home record, I expect them to qualify for the World Cup.

Written by Kampanart Wong, a sports writer who blogs about cheap football kits.

A number of players can stake a claim for being part of the best team in the world at this early period of the European domestic leagues. However, very few players standout the way those listed below have in terms of their contribution to their team, their role as leaders, and certainly their crucial involvement in their respective clubs.

Goalkeeper: Gianluigi Buffon- the Juventus and Azzurri custodian is back to his best and his outstanding saves have ensured the Bianconeri remain on course to qualify from their group in the Champions League as well as continue to challenge Internazionale for the Serie A title. Buffon has conceded only one dubious goal in Europe against Bordeaux. He saved the Old Lady on numerous occasions both in the domestic league and Europe. A poll in a previous segment of the website revealed that 65% of our readers voted for Buffon as the goalkeeper expected to be the best in South Africa (Please refer to The Best Goalkeepers in South Africa article written on November 5, 2009). Buffon has also been instrumental in Italy’s qualification to South Africa 2010.

Defense: John Terry, Carles Puyol, Maicon Douglas and Giorgio Chiellini- (Please refer to The Best Defenders Headed To South Africa piece written on November 11, 2009)

- Terry is quite influential and anchors the Chelsea defense which has conceded a mere eight goals in 12 Premiership matches. He is one of the players Fabio Capello will be relying on to help England safely navigate through the group stage. Terry is one of the most respected and acclaimed defenders in the world. His name and that of Chelsea have been linked together since the Premier League titles began to arrive at Stamford Bridge during the Jose Mourinho era.

- Puyol is the captain of a Barcelona side which won the treble last season and has conceded only seven goals in 10 la Liga matches up to this point.

- Maicon is the flying right-back who not only retrieves the ball for Internazionale but often starts attacking moves from his flank. He is one of the Nerazzurri’s most prized assets. The Brazilian has more votes than Terry, Puyol and Manchester United’s Vidic put together in our poll in the article mentioned above.

- Chiellini is the player who adds steel to both Italy’s and Juve’s defensive line. He can score the occasional goal but is renowned for his solid tackling and tough approach to the game. He is expected to lead the line once Fabio Cannavaro retires. Almost half of our readers who voted in a poll chose Chiellini as the best defender heading to South Africa.

Midfield: Lionel Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo, Marek Hamsik and Xabi Alonso

- Lionel Messi is one of the main catalysts behind Barcelona’s treble last season and has continued his devastating form for his club having notched seven goals in la Liga this season. His performances with Argentina are not as impressive but then perhaps that is down to Diego Maradona’s ill management of the players at his disposal as well as his debatable choice of players and tactics. When firing on all cylinders, Lio is a nightmare for defenders.

- Cristiano Ronaldo could perhaps be the only player from the current best 11 to miss out on South Africa 2010. Despite injury, Ronaldo has already found the back of the net on five occasions in la Liga not to mention his four goals in the Champions League. He will be hoping that his country will overcome his absence to beat Bosnia to qualify to the World Cup. The Portuguese hold a 1-0 edge after the weekend home win against the Bosnians.

- Marek Hamsik is perhaps a surprise inclusion to many but he has been one of the rising stars in Serie A the past couple of years and has helped Slovakia qualify to next summer’s World Cup. Hamsik is a wanted man and elite clubs in Italy and Europe have shown interest in his capture. It will only be time before he is snapped up by a bigger club than Napoli. He has already scored seven goals in Serie A this season including his brace in the stunning come-from-behind victory against Juventus in Turin.

- Xabi Alonso has been severely missed by Liverpool which lost much of its midfield structure when it sold the player to Real Madrid. The negative results suffered by Liverpool cannot be attributed to the loss of Alonso alone but it is still a testament to his importance and value to any team he plays for. Alonso recently stamped his authority in the friendly match against Argentina and led his country to a win by scoring both of Spain’s goals.

Attack: Didier Drogba and David Villa

-Didier Drogba has already scored nine goals in 12 Premiership matches not to mention the assists for a Chelsea team on top of the Premier League. Drogba has the speed and physical strength to out-muscle most defenders in England and Europe. He is a scoring threat in any match and can pop up to score a goal at any moment. He also led his country Ivory Coast to next summer’s World Cup.

- David Villa has been in demand for the past couple of years yet he remained with Valencia and his goals have helped his club to fourth place in la Liga’s standings. Villa has already scored eight times in nine games played in the Spanish league. He is one of the most dangerous attackers in Europe and the world. He will partner Fernando Torres in a lethal attack as they attempt to add World Cup 2010 to Spain’s trophy cabinet after securing Euro 2008 for their country.

There are clearly other qualified players who can make the list yet all those mentioned above have played a key role for their club and/or country. All the players, except for Cristiano Ronaldo at this stage, will be participating in South Africa 2010.