The winners of the last two World Cups, Germany will begin their defence of the trophy on home soil against Canada next June. The draw (Group A alongside Canada, Nigeria & France) will buoy the hosts as they have absolutely destroyed both Canada and Nigeria in recent friendly matches. Showing exactly why they are the two-time holders, Germany crushed Nigeria 8-0 just 5 days prior to the draw and they managed an equally-impressive 5-0 win over Canada – who had finished fourth in the 2003 World Cup.

2009’s beaten (by Germany, of course) European Championship finalists, England will also be pleased with their draw. Placed in Group B along with Japan, New Zealand and Mexico, things could have been far worse for the lone British representatives. As well as Germany, they have avoided two-time champions, USA and a couple of tricky sides in Group D, which features former champions Norway and the ever-improving Brazilians. That is not to say Group B will be easy for England, however, as Mexico have already proven their strength by beating USA in qualifying.

As mentioned, Group B will provide some of the best entertainment. Norway traditionally do well in World Cups, having won the competition in 1995, finishing second in the first ever World Cup in 1991 and finished fourth in the 1999 and 2007 finals. Despite that impressive World Cup calibre, Brazil will probably still be favourites when the two nations clash next June. They looked extremely impressive in the 2007 finals, finishing runners up to Germany, and are currently ranked 3^rd in the world – behind USA and Germany, whilst Norway currently sit 7^th. Australia are even lower in the rankings – in 12^th – but they are well capable of providing anyone with a tough match. They battled to a respectable 2-1 loss to Germany last month, and managed an impressive 3-1 win over Mexico 3 days earlier. Spare a thought for Equatorial Guinea though. The central Africans are competing in their first ever World Cup and sit all the way down in 62^nd in the world rankings. Group B is not an ideal draw for them, to say the least.

The U.S. won’t necessarily be especially pleased with their draw. Their recent form hasn’t always been totally impressive, and Korea DPR and Sweden will present considerable challenges. Amazingly, USA have been placed in the same group as Korea DPR in each of the last three World Cups, and Sweden have often faced both sides too. This familiarity will only add to the tension, but ultimately, the U.S. are still perfectly capable of topping the group if they can hit the ground running. Colombia are the fourth team in Group C, and will be able to play in the knowledge that there is very little expectation on their shoulders.

The Draw in Full:

Group A – Germany, Canada, Nigeria, France

Group B – Japan, New Zealand, Mexico, England

Group C – United States, Korea DPR, Colombia, Sweden

Group D – Brazil, Australia, Norway, Equatorial Guinea

Amid the sort-of joy and sort-of pain that comes with the wins and losses of international friendlies (barring of course, the big rivalries that were played out on Wednesday — Argentina/Brazil, Spain/Portugal, England/France, etc.), FIFA managed to slip in an innocuous report on their website, complete with a link to a 23-page PDF evaluating the candidates for the 2018 and 2022 World Cup.

And, shockingly early as it seems, “on 2 December 2010, the FIFA Executive Committee will announce its verdict and award the hosting rights to the two best candidates.”

Personally I’m still in a state of semi-exhaustion from the recent World Cup and the seemingly immediate uptake of the club season with all the drama of a suddenly competitive Premier League (do we have Manchester City’s money to thank?), a Real Madrid team that looks set to challenge Barcelona after two years of impossibly meek performances from Los Blancos, and the slide of Inter that coincided with the arrival of Rafa Benitez.  And now all of a sudden FIFA will make or break the hearts of hundreds of millions on Dec. 2.

So what does the longish report tell us?  What is buried in those 23-pages?

As it turns out, a whole lot of OK news for pretty much everybody.

The big question pertains to England and the reality TV worthy spat between the FA and the Russian Football union that resulted in some jingoistic nation bashing and not a whole lot else.  FIFA remained silent on the well publicized issue in this report, which isn’t terribly surprising given the ultra technical nature of the thing.  As an example from FIFA about Russia’s transportation issues:

“The country’s vastness and its remoteness from other countries, coupled with the fact that the high-speed railway network is limited and would only link six candidate Host Cities by 2018, would put pressure on the air traffic infrastructure, potentially causing transfer challenges in view of the lack of alternative means of long-distance transport. The current air traffic situation is to be improved throughmajor upgrades and capacity increases to the majority of the airports.”

If you braved that FIFA-always-attempting-to-be-neutral paragraph and are hoping for England for 2018, then you’re probably happy.  In short, the paragraph stated that transportation is an important feature of the World Cup and Russia’s infrastructure is currently inadequate.

But every nation was given a finger wag by FIFA.  It’s just hard to tell precisely which finger wag is a big deal.  For instance, FIFA raised concerns over legal issues regarding the United States’ bid, citing a lack of government guarantees.  This would seem to be a major issue, although FIFA noted that the USA has hosted a great deal of international events and the government has always complied in the past.

Similarly, the Iberian bid was questioned for not having a clear enough security plan, although again FIFA conceded that they would likely have solved such details in time to host the tournament.

In fact, the biggest criticisms that cannot be foreseeable altered to satisfaction in the next 8 or 12 years pertains to location and bid type.  For Spain/Portugal and Holland/Belgium, FIFA expressly notes that double bids are more challenging due to the “administrative, logistical and financial challenges” of two nations.

The other serious problem for FIFA seems  to be money.  In Australia, Korea and Japan, FIFA has noted that due to the time differences, “the income from Asia/Oceania would need to be increased substantially to offset the likelihood of loss of revenue in Europe.”

A last concern was the devastating heat of Qatar during June and July, which was essentially cited as a health risk to most people at the tournament, although such sentiment was phrased in far more polite language.

I would assume these three concerns would be FIFA’s greatest since they cannot be easily altered the way hotels, and even stadia and transport infrastructure can be, but FIFA’s history of making political decisions ahead of football ones suggest these obstacles aren’t insurmountable.

In conclusion, I sense England has come out of this evaluation slightly ahead of their rivals for 2018.  The criticisms against the bid seemed less severe than against the others, although again, in FIFA’s arid and conscientious tone, it is difficult to tell.

As for 2022, I feel the USA is an attractive option because of the very high potential for revenue (the highest ticketing revenue of all the bids) and its history in hosting.  Qatar has novelty but lacks the draw of all the other host countries in my lifetime.

With a UEFA winner guaranteed from 2018, the bids from Spain/Portugal and Holland/Belgium for 2022 have been rendered void due to consecutive hosting rules from FIFA.  With the remaining options, I feel that the winner will either be USA or Qatar (advantage US), based on the simple assumption that revenue loss will deter FIFA from the Asia/Oceania time zone.

Note 20/11/10: This article has been edited in light of an error regarding FIFA policy.

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…

When you are 11 years old, the word “gay” has a very specific meaning.  It has nothing to do with homosexuality.  It is all-purpose adjective that refers to some activity or event that no self-respecting 11 year old boy would want anything to do with.  Classical music was gay.  Picnics with egg salad sandwiches were gay.  The “It’s a Small World” ride at Disneyland was gay.

When I was 11, I thought soccer was gay.

How could it not be?  Sports was an activity broadcast on network television with production values and drunken announcers like Howard Cosell.  Soccer was (at least in Los Angeles) a grainy, week-old, video of a Bundesliga game broadcast on PBS (which in itself is gay) narrated by some guy with a British accent.  I played Little League and basketball, and one year my mom signed me up for soccer because she thought it was European, and thus cultural (i.e. gay).  Our team name was The Leprechauns (how gay is that?) because some kid’s Irish dad was the coach.  No thanks to my skills, we ended up winning our league, and I hid that trophy way back in the closet where nobody would ever see it and told my mom that I never wanted to play that dumb sport again.

That opinion about soccer pretty much stayed unchanged until 1994.  To be specific, June 28, 1994.  I was living in Washington DC, and a friend had invited me to see Italy play Mexico in the World Cup at RFK Stadium.  I understood that the World Cup was a big deal, and that a lot of people were into it.  Having been in Los Angeles for the Olympics a decade before, I learned that you could go to sporting events for which you had no interest (I saw West Germany beat Romania in Team Handball!) and still have a good time, so I went. 

That game was like nothing I have ever seen.  The Olympics were filled with singing and dancing and that stupid flag and lots of polite cheering.  In fact, if I was 11 at the time, I would have called the Olympics gay.  This, on the other hand, was about naked nationalism, unbridled passion, and an unalloyed desire to see your team triumph.  When the Italians scored just after halftime, their fans were in ecstasy.  Kirk Gibson home run ecstasy.  The Mexican fans emotionally crumbled.  When Mexico scored 10 minutes later, the emotions reversed.  The game ended in a 1-1 draw, and even though cynical American sports fans were supposed to feel unsatisfied at a draw, I was enraptured.  Totally hooked.  And, eventually, obsessed.

It is an obsession that has never really slacked.  Someone gave me Fever Pitch and I became an Arsenal fan.   The MLS started and I became a Galaxy fan.  Every four summers I devoted myself to what I came to accept as the greatest piece of sporting entertainment that existed.  I read about soccer.  I surf the net about soccer.  And, if you are reading this, you will know that I write about soccer. 

I still like baseball and love college football and basketball, but soccer is my chief obsession.  I try not to be evangelical about soccer with my friends.  People who harp about how great the sport is often come off as sounding a little snooty to the uninitiated.  Nevertheless, I try to lasso at least a few people every World Cup into following the tournament.  “Watch a few games, and I bet you will not be able to let it go.”  Those that I can convince end up loving the tournament, and though not all become fanatics about the sport, at least they can appreciate what I see in it.

So, that is my advice to you, the American reader of World Cup Buzz.  Don’t jump on a soapbox about the World Cup.  Don’t preach to the world about “The Beautiful Game.”  Don’t get into inane arguments with people who parrot Jim Rome’s nonsense.  Just get a couple of close friends to commit to watching the World Cup this summer.  Let them soak in the experience.  In all likelihood, you will create a soccer fan.

And, perhaps, a soccer obsessive.

Group C of the 2010 World Cup is one of the most interesting ones for several reasons, most of which revolve around who will have win the bragging rights after the United States competes against rival England. But who do you think will advance from Group C? Cast your vote about and click the comments below to share your opinions.

Rounds 7 and 8 of CONCACAF World Cup qualifiers were the rounds that re-established the known order of CONCACAF national teams. The US & Mexico came into these rounds in need of 6 points to overtake Honduras & Costa Rica in the standings. The Stars & Stripes defeated El Salvador 2-1 at home in Utah with Jozy Altidore scoring the game winner in 1st half injury time. The US then traveled to Port of Spain and defeated Trinidad & Tobago 1-0 on a Ricardo Clark long distance GOLAZO. The victories moved the US to the top of the hexagonal.

Mexico was in the same position as the US, needing 6 points to affirm their position as a CONCACAF power. Beginning with an impressive 3-0 road win against Costa Rica at Saprissa Stadium. Giovani Dos Santos was the man of the match scoring a GOLAZO to open the scoring and set up the other two goals to give El Tri a massive 3 points. Mexico’s next match was at home against a hot Honduras team that had won 4 of their last 5 matches. It was a hard fought match that was decided in the 74th minute when Dos Santos was fouled in the box and Cuauhtemoc Blanco buried the PK to give Mexico its 4th consecutive WCQ win and 2nd place in the standings.

Here are the results & standings from these rounds:

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 5TH

United States 2 – 1 El Salvador
USA: Clint Dempsey (41′) & Jozy Altidore (45′+2′)
SLV: Cristian Castillo (31′)

Honduras 4 – 1 Trinidad & Tobago
HON: Carlos Pavon (20′, 28′), Amado Guevara (62′), David Suazo (83′)
TNT: Kerry Baptiste (86′)

Costa Rica 0 – 3 Mexico
MEX: Giovani Dos Santos (45′+1′), Guillermo Franco (62′), Andres Guardado (71′)

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9TH

El Salvador 1 – 0 Costa Rica
SLV: Rudis Corrales (90′+1′)

Trinidad & Tobago 0 – 1 United States
USA: Ricardo Clark (62′)

Mexico 1 – 0 Honduras
MEX: Cuauhtemoc Blanco (pen 75′)

STANDINGS

The eternal question of football/soccer and its survival in the United States is: Why won’t the sport be huge and break into the Big 4 of US Professional Sports (NFL, NBA, MLB, NASCAR)?

Well we have 5 answers to that question that will make you think and hopefully bring out some emotion in favor or against these arguments. So let’s reveal the Top 5 reasons why soccer will not be huge in the U.S.

#5 – Outside Soccer Snobbery


My colleagues at Mad About Futbol might take offense or disagree but foreigners from soccer loving/mad countries look down & raise their noses to the US game. There is no doubt that the US game is of lower quality than in Europe, Africa, and South America. The structure of college ball in relation to the professional game and the ludicrous rules of the college game have certainly contributed to the slow progress of the US game from a skills perspective.

For the game to grow in the US, those people from soccer loving nations outside the US have to stop bad mouthing the quality and look at the MLS and the college game for what is. It is important these “Soccer Snobs” look at the game here through a different lens and stop comparing it to their home leagues and expecting MLS or college teams to play like a team from their home 1st division league.

#4 – No Patience

Those of us who love futbol know that its takes great patience to watch 90 minutes of a match. The fact is Americans are some A.D.D., ridiculously short attention span having peoples. The most common complaint is that there isn’t enough action to sustain watching a soccer match. Americans are not conditioned to appreciate the subtlety of football because American society as a whole is about instant gratification and the quick fix. The artistry & skill of soccer is lost on Americans because there isn’t a goal being scored every 2 seconds or someone isn’t getting the snot blasted out of them on every play. A game of patience cannot become huge in an impatient society.

#3 – Freak Athlete Factor


This might be the most overlooked of the reasons, the Freak Athlete Factor. Americans like their athletes freakish, whether they are unusually tall like basketball players or unusually muscular like American football or the roided up baseball players. There is a real life, comic book quality that Americans like in their athletes. Soccer players are tremendous athletes but compared to athletes in the Big 3 sports, there is nothing about their size or physical stature that makes them stand out.

If you didn’t know who Lionel Messi was and he walked down the streets of a city in the US, you would walk right past him and not think twice. The 2 greatest players of all time, Pelé & Maradona are 5’8″ and 5’5″ respectively, their heights alone would have made it damn near impossible for them to be successful in the NBA, NFL, or MLB. Without sounding condescending, soccer is the common person’s game with its stars & icons looking as common as their rabid fans.

#2 – Rich Country, Poor Game


Football/Soccer is the game of the poor and the US is the richest country in the world. (Honestly, poor people in the US live better than poor people in most other countries). How many times have you heard of an American footballer growing up learning to play barefoot in the street and fashioning a ball out of plastic bags or socks? Zero. That’s a regular occurrence in many countries all over the world. In countries with worse poverty, their ticket out is soccer. In the US, poor kids see basketball & American football as their way out. It takes a lot less equipment & “stuff” to play soccer than American football or even basketball. The poorer you are the less “stuff” you can afford, the easier it is to take up soccer.

#1 – The American Way


The number one reason that soccer will not be huge in the US, is American isolationism. Americans are adamant about doing things the “American Way.” That’s why in the States, we don’t use the much easier metric system, health care is not socialized, and why soccer is looked down upon. The prevailing notion in the US is that soccer is as an immigrant sport played by short guys with one name who aren’t masculine cause they don’t use their hands. See Jim Rome’s ignorant, isolationist ass. A nation founded by immigrants has grown to view immigrants as dirty and the scourge of a nation. This American isolationist mentality & air of superiority has carried over to the promotion & marketing of soccer, thus stunting the growth of the Beautiful Game in the US.

There you have it, the 5 Reasons Why Soccer Won’t Be Huge In The US. I’m an American born & raised and I don’t care if soccer breaks the Big 4 of US Pro Sports as long as there’s enough of a following for my child to make 6 figures playing professionally in the States. The internationality of soccer is alluring enough for me to make The Beautiful Game my #1 sport till I die.

As the USA stumbled upon a second place finish in the Confederations Cup, ESPN surely reaped the benefits. Although the team were lucky to be in the final, every “soccer” fan in the United States of America was jumping up in down as the US took a two goal lead, only to suffer a heartbreak in the second half. The result still seemed to be a turning point for football in America. Next came the pre-season friendlies throughout the country where, once again, ESPN cashed in.

Unlike ESPN’s effort to help develop the MLS, the network has done a fantastic job with the national team. However, just when an actual important match comes up, ESPN decides not to show the USA’s most crucial World Cup Qualifier on TV. As displayed on usssocer.com the games versus EL Salvador, Costa Rica, and Trinidad and Tobago are on ESPN Classic, first, fifth, and sixth respectively. The crucial match at  second place Honduras on October 10th, which could cement the United States’ place in the World Cup, will not be shown on TV. By now I am pretty sure that ESPN does not care about the well being of the sports shown on its networks, only about maximizing its profits. I am sure that if ESPN showed the Mexico game on ESPN HD or ESPN2 HD that a mind boggling number of people would have tuned in, resulting in ESPN collecting profits once again. Apparently ESPN does not want the popularity of soccer in America to increase, so the network has decided not to show the big matches on TV. I just hope next time the TV rights come around, ESPN will not be allowed to bid at all.

By the way, you might have read the three World Cup Qualifiers that ESPN does show are on ESPN Classic. Yes, that does mean that there will be no HD programming available!

How would someone characterize US Soccer’s Summer of 2009? The extreme optimist would say that the US made a non-CONCACAF tournament major final for the 1st time by ending Spain’s world record streak, then with a “B” side made it to the final of the CONCACAF Gold Cup.

The extreme pessimist would say that the United States squad blew a massive opportunity to establish themselves as a major world footballing nation with their collapse in the 2nd half Confederations Cup final. Add to that Mexico put their cleats in the US rectum on US soil in the final of a tournament they have recently owned.

Both sides have legitimate points, however my leaning is 80-20 towards the pessimist side. Its not all bad but it should have been much better.

Let’s begin in South Africa, where the US took advantage of the fact that they barely made it into the semis. The way they got into the semis wasn’t anything to be proud of but hey they made it in so I won’t hold that against them. In beating Spain 2-0 in the semis, the U.S. earned massive respect but needed to lift the trophy in order to achieve “Miracle On Ice” status and stop the world footballing community from looking down on the US soccer program. In the biggest final in US Soccer history, The Stars & Stripes choked, played scared in the 2nd half with a 2-0 lead and lost 3-2 to Brazil. At this level of football, its no trophy, no glory, no respect.

The difference between Brazil, Germany, Italy and the elite footballing nations and the US is trophies in international tournaments outside their own confederations. Brazil, Germany, Italy each have multiple trophies and the US have zero. Lifting the Confederations Cup by beating Brazil would have been a great boost to US Soccer’s reputation in the world football community.

Now onto the CONCACAF Gold Cup, a tournament the US was expected to win and coming in had won the last 2 editions and 3 of the last 4 stagings. To no one’s surprise, the US made it to the final with their “B” side. That’s nothing to smile about because that was what the Americans were supposed to do, praising their place in the Gold Cup final is like heaping glory upon a 2 month old for soiling their diaper.

In the final, once again in the 2nd half, the US wilted and let their arch-rival stomp them to a 5-0 embarrassment. The Americans looked slow, unorganized, and helpless. There is no excuse for that loss and the notion that it was the “B” side is no consolation. If the US is to be considered a great program,they have to display their depth by winning tournaments with their “B” side.

If you are counting that’s 8 goals allowed in two 2nd halves of 2 major international tournament finals almost a month apart. The 20% optimist says that its fulfilling to have reached two finals but the 80% pessimist says that the manner with which they lost those finals were embarrassing and shameful.

The summer of 2009 for U.S. Soccer should be remembered for its finals disappointments. The lesson of the summer of 2009: To fully appreciate winning, you have to feel the pain of losing.

What a week of exciting football action, MLS, Superliga, Recopa Sudamericana, Copa Libertadores, Asian Champions League, and of course FIFA Confederations Cup. You know summertime is just as busy as the fall, spring, and winter in football. Thankfully for us football lovers, its a year round sport. It was hard to choose a TOW because of the amount of action going around but we chose a worthy side. Remember that the World Cup Buzz Team Of The Week played matches and/or made headlines during the calendar week of June 22-28:

The winner is:

UNITED STATES NATIONAL TEAM

The United States national team made huge strides with their play in the 2009 Confederations Cup. On the 24th, the Americans stunned the world with their 2-0 semifinal win against Spain. Goals by Jozy Altidore & Clint Dempsey ended Spain’s record unbeaten & winning streak. It was the greatest win in US Soccer history. In the final against Brazil, the US seemed to have repeated the Spain result when they were ahead of Brazil, 2-0 at halftime. However a brilliant 2nd half Brazil comeback ended US hopes of their 1st FIFA non-CONCACAF title with a 3-2 loss. The fact that the US held their own against the best two teams in the world is enough to give the United States National Team the award as World Cup Buzz Team Of The Week.