Report: FIFA Officials Took Bribes in Qatar World Cup Bid

Who is that masked man?

Shocker!

As in all good conspiracies and corruption stories, as soon as it gets too hot in the kitchen, one of the scumbags involved in the crime starts singing like a canary. Case in point: various news outlets report today that a whistleblower is accusing FIFA executive committee members from Cameroon and the Ivory Coast of taking $1.5 million bribes to vote for the middle eastern nation's bid to host the 2022 World Cup.

This is the same World Cup the U.S. was thought to be a shoe-in to host. The same World Cup  being hosted by an ultra-conservative nation, that among other pleasantries, doesn't accept the existence of homosexuals. Good thing Sepp Blatter wants every region of the planet to host the biggest sporting event in the world; remember, he told gay folks to keep it zipped up during the tournament.

This stunk from the second rumors started flying that Qatar was the winner in the day or two leading up tot the announcement in December. Qatar was a bigger longshot than the Tampa Bay Lightning reaching the NHL semifinals this year. At least the Lightning have won the Stanley Cup before--or at least play in a professional league. Qatar barely has a top-flight professional league, much less a national team.

Thankfully we're more than 10 years from the World Cup and Qatar's sheikly finances can be adequately investigated and an audit trail can be established that will root out the evil-doers and clean up the World Cup. Yeah right.

How about we just start at the top by getting rid of Blatter now. He's the scum of scum, the lowest of the low; he capitulated even if he was ignorant of the goings-on. He's the shame of football and the poster child for sporting evil. He allowed this crooked charade to happen, molded it into a profitable enterprise and manipulated the result he wanted. He must go.

And then Qatar must go. There's no way soccer's showcase event can happen in that country, or any other that is so brazen about the means in which it gamed the system to host the World Cup. There needs to be an overhaul of FIFA and a process put in place where the debate and discussion over which nation will host the World Cup be public and transparent.

Here's hoping this scandal gets ugly--real ugly. To the point where it's lead story on CNN-ugly. Blatter must be exposed. The executive committee must be exposed. The holes in this process must be exposed. Call off or postpone the World Cup in Brazil and/or Russia if you have to, but do something.

And start with Sepp. Cut the head off, and the rest of the body will follow.

World Cup 2010 Group Predictions and Previews

Here's a one-stop landing page for Starting Eleven World Cup 2010 Group Predictions and Previews

Group A

Group B

Group C

Group D

Group E

Group F

Group G

Group H

Subscribe to Starting Eleven

World Cup 2010: Group H Preview

And now we come to the favorites, Spain. In all my years of following football closely, I've never seen such an under-valued, ignored and overlooked tournament favorite than Spain. These guys were the rage of the Confederations Cup, the Euro two years ago and now on the biggest stage, no one is talking Spain.

Well, I'm going to say it: Spain. Spain. Spain. The rest of the tournament better pray for rain.

Xavi and Iniesta are the best midfield in the world, one of the best ever. Casillas is the best keeper (OK, maybe Julio Cesar is right there with him). Torres, when healthy, is one of the world's top 3 finishers. This is a cakewalk -- well, it should be.

So the battle is for second and it's going to be a war between Chile and Switzerland, and hell, maybe even Honduras. The Swiss are the Under 17 World Cup winners and are building a quietly interesting team over there. Honduras always plays with a lot of heart in Concacaf and survived a group that included the US and Mexico among others. Chile, meanwhile, was a point back of Brazil in World Cup qualifying, right there with Paraguay. This is probably the toughest call in the tournament, but I'm making it based on, yes, my hemisphere rule. Spain and Chile.

1. Spain 7 points
   
2. Chile 5
   
3. Switzerland 4
   
4. Honduras 0
   

Subscribe to Starting Eleven

World Cup 2010: Group G Preview

Welcome to the Group of Death, or the GOD group. God help us here, because this is one for the ages. Brazil and Portugal, two countries divided by a common language (kinda like England and the US). And the Ivory Coast, Africa's best hope whose best player broke his elbow in a meaningless friendly. Finally, North Korea. Who knows what we have with these poor guys? Locked behind an iron wall for all eternity, they could be studs, or more likely duds.

If Didier Drogba can't play, then the pendulum definitely swings toward the Portuguese speaking lads in the group. If Drogba is effective, then we could have the dream group we prayed for back in December when the pairings were announced.

Let's go on the assumption Drogba won't play much, or if he does, won't make much of an impact. Either way, if this comes down to Brazil-Portugal on June 25, it will be all-time epic if both teams need to win to advance. I say they both do.

1. Brazil 7 points
2. Portugal 6
   
3. Ivory Coast 4
4. North Korea 0

Subscribe to Starting Eleven

World Cup 2010: Group F Preview

Well, well, surprise surprise, the defending champs get a cakewalk draw. Or do they?

One thing is certain about Group F and that's New Zealand. It's certain they won't win, maybe won't even score a goal. It'll be a quick holiday in South Africa for the Kiwis. So we have three nations fighting for two spots, and one going to Italy, one would presume.

So it's down to South America's upstarts Paraguay and Slovakia. I'll stick with the hemisphere argument and Paraguay; having Oscar Cardozo scoring goals and Roque Santa Cruz wandering about doesn't hurt either. What the hell, let's say they win the group too.

1. Paraguay 7 points
   
2. Italy 5
   
3. Slovenia 4
   
4. New Zealand 0
   

Subscribe to Starting Eleven

World Cup 2010: Group E Preview

Group E for excellent (tip o the cap to Sesame Street). Do we have a surprise champion resting here? How about an African slayer. A beast from the East? And what of Denmark?

The Netherlands are the popular upset pick to win the whole thang, but it ain't happening. Especially if Robben is hurting. Denmark, one time Euro winners, can't catch a break here with Cameroon and sly Japan waiting in the wings.

Tough call, wish I had one of those Harry Potter hats to tell who will make it out. I think it would tell me, it's gotta be, Holland and Cameroon.

1. Netherlands 5 points
   
2. Cameroon 5
   
3. Japan 5
   
4. Denmark 0

Subscribe to Starting Eleven

World Cup 2010: Group D Preview

Four countries, three continents; must be Group D, otherwise known as the Germany and everyone else group.

Germany is going to win this group, they're going to blow through this group, they're going to be in the second round and probably the quarterfinals. Ho-hum. It's probably no secret I despise German soccer. Not for political or historical reasons, no, it's primarily because they bore me to tears when they play. And they always win. Hate the Yankees. Loathe the Canadiens. Don't get me started on German soccer.

Ghana is here, so is Australia and Serbia. I would have made Ghana an automatic, but Michael Essien is out, and he's awesome. So Ghana is done. It's between the Socceroos and Serbia and I have to go with the Serbs. They've got former Sporting keeper Stojkovic, and 18 other guys whose name ends in 'vic. Except for that Vidic guy in the middle of their defense. I like him. I like defense.

It's Germany and Serbia.

1. Germany 7
   
2. Serbia 7
   
3. Australia 1
   
4. Ghana 0
   

Subscribe to Starting Eleven

World Cup 2010: Group C Preview

Group C; it's my favorite cup. Just like the World Cup. My favorite cup.

Saturday's England-USA opener has so many storylines I'm dizzy. Two hundred-plus years of storylines as a matter of fact, so what to do? Worry about Rooney and Rio's injuries? How about Gooch? How well will he play? Will the U.S.'s goal scoring dry up? Arrgh. Just play already.

It's England and the U.S.

1. England 9 points
2. U.S. 6
3. Algeria 3
4. Slovenia 0
   

Subscribe to Starting Eleven

World Cup 2010: Group B Preview

Group by group we go previewing the 2010 World Cup. On to Group B:

Getting a real sense of deja vu here with Argentina, Greece and Nigeria in the same group, just as they were in 1994. In fact, this group was based in Foxboro, Mass., and I saw a few of these matches in person. In fact, the opener was Maradona's final World Cup match, a 4-0 win over Greece with Maradona scoring once and Batistuta potting three. Maradona was suspended shortly thereafter and never played again.

The Nigerians meanwhile, went out in the second round to Italy and South Korea and the Greeks out in the group stage.

So in the name of deja vu, let's go with Argentina and Nigeria here.

1. Argentina 7 points
2. Nigeria 7
3. Greece 3
4. South Korea 0

Subscribe to Starting Eleven

World Cup 2010: Group A Preview

Group by Group we go previewing the 2010 World Cup. Today's it's Group A:

This is an interesting group for a couple of reasons. Clearly, the host side being here presents a quandary, because, well, frankly they're not that good. Yet South Africa could get a boost on emotion alone and if it could somehow manage to steal a point or three, it could at least influence the outcome of the group rather than be a doormat for the other three nations.

The other story here is obviously France, who is in Africa only because of Thierry Henry's not-so-magical hand. You can bet there won't be a lot of love for the French in the tournament, very little emotional support outside of France and a lot ill will.

So in the interest of ill will and rude hosts, we'll go with Mexico and Uruguay, lending credence of course to the fact that Northern hemisphere nations have no chance of winning in the south.

1. Mexico 7 points
   
2. Uruguay 5
   
3. France 3
   
4. South Africa 1

Subscribe to Starting Eleven

'Private' Security Fails in pre-World Cup Fan Stampede Outside Friendly

Less than a week out from the start of the World Cup, and the tournament is filthy with injuries, terror threats and now fans stampeding outside today's Nigeria-North Korea friendly.

This begs the question, a query that's been haunting this tournament since South Africa was selected years ago: Are the players and fans safe?

Suddenly, South Africa's rampant crime rates seem tame to the political turmoil and apparently lackadaisical attitude toward security. Today's tragedy that left 14 injured--a number that's surely to rise--is being blamed on the fact that the match was a friendly. Therefore, World Cup security was not on the job. Apparently the rules say it was Nigeria's match, they provide security. The Nigerians' crack private security team was, apparently, on crack today.

Fans rushed the gates twice trying to get into the grounds and people were run over like traffic cones during a teen's driver's license exam. Pitiful. Frightening.

What are we in for in the next month?

How does FIFA allow this? Again, a very legitimate question. How can FIFA just wash its hands of a friendly less than a week from the start of the event. What? "World Cup security" whatever that is, is too expensive for a friendly? Crowd control isn't important before the tournament? Ridiculous. FIFA proves again that it does not value the safety of its players, its product. The players and the game, and of course, the fans, are the core of the game. To allow private security to be in charge today is irresponsible and negligent. I dare say if Brazil was in a friendly against, oh, anyone, there would have been World Cup security on the grounds.

This is disgusting, and harkens back to the terrorism attack on Togo's players during the African Cup of Nations. Why would FIFA allow a national team to travel through war-torn roads by bus? Probably the same reason it would allow private security to be in charge less than a week out from the World Cup.

Say a prayer for this tournament; I hope this is the last such post I have to write in the next five weeks. We all do.

Subscribe to Starting Eleven

Results of My Unofficial Poll

Who will win the World Cup? That's what I asked a couple of months ago and 158 of you chimed in. Some of you have a sense of humor, which is just downright adorable--yes I'm talking to you 3 jokers who voted for South Africa and the clown who voted North Korea.

Surprises:

• France getting only 2 votes. Hmm; Australia, Mexico and Serbia, just to name three, got more votes than Henry's men. Henry backlash? Hmmm.
• Argentina getting only four votes.
• Greece, Denmark get no love, but 1 vote for Algeria? OK, that's why it's unofficial and unscientific.

The results:

1. Spain - 43 votes (27% of the vote)
2. England - 24 (15%)
3. Germany - 11 (6%)
4. Brazil - 10 (6%)
5. Italy - 10 (6%)
6. Netherlands - 10 (6%)
7. Portugal - 9 (5%)
8. USA - 8 (5%)

Let's see how good you guys really are once this thing is over.

Subscribe to Starting Eleven

Black Friday: Injuries claim Drogba, Rio from World Cup

One week out from the start of the 2010 World Cup, and we lose Didier Drogba and Rio Ferdinand in the same day. Black Friday has arrived.

Maybe the bigger question is: Why the f*&k are these guys playing in friendlies leading up to the real thing a week away? You telling me they're not in game condition after 50-plus domestic, cup and Champions League games? You telling me they're going to get some much-needed continuity playing Japan's scrubs in South Africa 4,000 miles away from anyone who gives a crap in either direction?

The U.S. plays Australia today and if Cliff Dempsey, Landon Donovan, Gooch or anyone else within a sniff of the U.S. Starting Eleven gets anywhere near the pitch, Bob Bradley should be fired on the spot. He's already got a balky Jozy Altidore and no Charlie Davies, we don't need no more anxiety. There's definitely some bad mojo in the air south of the equator-for sure.

As for the impact of today's dropping flies, Ferdinand and Drogba, well England got the better of that one. The English are in a much easier group and can get past the U.S., Algeria and Slovakia sans Rio. Beyond that, come see me in three weeks and we'll talk.

Drogba's injury, meanwhile, is a crusher. Ivory Coast needs a legit finisher in that group with Brazil and Portugal; boy you gotta figure there was a collective Yippee in the Queiroz house when it was learned Drogba had an owie in the elbow. Brazil and Portugal may have just gotten a free pass to the second round; now can Portugal win the group and avoid Spain in the second round? We'll see. Big difference between Spain and Switzerland, well at least that's what I hear.

Subscribe to Starting Eleven

Size Counts When It Comes To U.S. World Cup Cities

Olympic fatigue.

I'm still laughing over that one.

That was United States Soccer Federation president Sunil Gulati's explanation/justification for excluding the USSF's hometown Chicago from its list of 18 potential host cities for the 2018 World Cup. Should the U.S. win the rights to host the games, it will have to trim that list to about a dozen, but there's a lot angst in the midwest and Windy City over the snub.

Pitch Invasion has sources saying that Chicago's presentation to the USSF was weak and Gulati leapt the extra mile to say that was a result of all the wasted effort the city put into hosting the 2016 Obam-, er Olympic Games.

I think the real answer, however, lies in the number 61,500.

That's the capacity of Soldier Field, which was recently renovated. OK, I've been to Chicago many times and seen Soldier Field just about every time I've been to that city. Two things: aside from Boston and San Francisco, Chicago is THE BEST city in the United States. It just has a feel to it. Plenty of great restaurants and things to see. And Soldier Field, while ugly and apparently designed by a 9-year-old with a Lego fetish who likes to stack mismatched architectural elements together, is in a great location and easy to reach. It's in the middle of a bunch of great ethnic neighborhoods (let's hear it for Greektown) and a short cab ride from downtown. This is the essence of a no-brainer.

Only problem is, that pesky 61,500 number.

I'm guessing, and I bet I'm right, that the U.S., should it host the World Cup, wants to blow the doors off the thing with an average attendance exceeding 70,000. Imagine such a thing. It would be tremendous. But at the expense of one of its greatest cultural centers? C'mon Sunil, that's lame.

The 18 cities, in alphabetical order, are:

1. Atlanta
2. Baltimore
3. Boston
4. Dallas
5. Denver
6. Houston
7. Indianapolis
8. Kansas City
9. Los Angeles
10. Miami
11. Nashville
12. New York
13. Philadelphia
14. Phoenix
15. San Diego
16. Seattle
17. Tampa
18. Washington, D.C

It's hard to argue with the list, especially from the stadia perspective. Most of them are modern, new and huge. The locations? Eh, not so much. Let's take Tampa, for example. The most recent Super Bowl host and former home of the Tampa Bay Rowdies (do they still exist?), but why give Florida two cities? Miami works just fine, trust me. And Baltimore and Washington, D.C.? For those of you outside the U.S., you could spit from the Baltimore airport and get FedEx Stadium wet with snot. Baltimore has been a great venue for international tournaments and supported these phony summer Chelsea v. the World events, but so has D.C. (does any MLS team have better fan support--and isn't RFK the unofficial home of the U.S. men's national team?).

Which brings us to Phoenix, Atlanta, Kansas City and Indianapolis. Here's the proof in the pudding that it's all about the venues. Phoenix has the best stadium in America, I'd say. It's a retractable roof; the grass is real and on wheels and spends that day outside in the sun and comes in for games. Nice. But Phoenix? A football hotbed? Well, maybe, but not the kind of football we're talking about.

Atlanta? Oh My God. That city has had one of the most successful baseball franchies in the last 20 years, and consistently could not sell out playoff games. Imagine? It's generally considered the worst sports city in the country. Plus they're talking about a dome -- the massive Georgia Dome, plastic grass and all. No thanks.

KC, huge venue. Old venue. Loud venue. Great NFL fans. But a soccer city. Not sure about that one. Again, size counts here. Same goes for Indy and Lucas Oil Field. Another retractable roof. More plastic grass. More about the big venue.

Chicago has a beef. They've been done wrong by the USSF and it's not going to be righted apparently. Maybe the Windy City can get a few years' worth of good sleep and rid itself of its Olympic fatigue, and of course, tack on another 10,000 seats somewhere and maybe, just maybe, Sunil Gulati will reconsider. Somehow, I think not. Methinks he's a size queen.

Subscribe to Starting Eleven

Ban Penalty Kicks From the World Cup Final? What Do You Say?

Gabriele Marcotti has an interesting blog post up on the Times of London website; a good chunk of it is about the need to scrap penalties from the World Cup final.

Anyone who loves football loathes it when a major final is decided on penalty kicks. The teams sweat and labor for 120 minutes only to have what is often the biggest day of their professional lives decided by a spot kick 12 yards from goal. It's hardly fair, though it is equitable. And there's a difference I suppose.

But good Lord, it's so against what is right and wonderful about football, that there has to be a way to nuke PKs from the World Cup finals. Honestly, wasn't the 2006 Italy-France final such a downer; such a well-played 120 minutes coming down to PKs made it so anticlimactic and unmemorable. It's such an American answer to the finish of a sporting event that I'm surprised FIFA allows it at all. We here in the States love sudden death. Hockey has sudden death. Golf too. Pro football, our new pastime, perverts sudden death to such an extreme that it's possible the losing team would never even have has possession of the ball and still could lose the game.

But nothing overseas seems to embrace this concept of sudden death or overtimes that don't adhere to the game itself. Hell, even league champions are crowned based on their performance in the table over the course of 30 to 38 games. No playoffs. No wild cards. No sudden death in the Super Bowl.

So why should what is arguably the greatest sporting event on this beautiful planet be allowed if necessary to be decided by an individual action after 120 minutes of team play? It's not right.

The solution? Well Marcotti says there should be a replay of the game three days later, and if that game still ends in a draw after 120 minutes, then bring on the PKs.

Um. Maybe in an ideal world. But you know what? If I hold a ticket for the World Cup final, or I'm shelling out millions to advertise on television during the World Cup final, I damned better well see a champion crowned on the field of play that day. I'm not staying in country another three days and nights--at whose expense by the way--for the Wednesday replay. No, that won't work.

But what would?

Shorter extra periods?

Refresh the sub limit for extra time, giving each team two substitutions for the extra time, no matter how many they've used during the first 90?

Golden goals?

10 v. 10?

No goalies?

Yeah, I'm getting ridiculous, but it's a serious and legitimate problem. Granted, only two of the 18 World Cup finals have been decided on penalty kicks (three others in extra time), but we're seeing it happen with more frequency in the Champions League and even down to the domestic cup level. Teams get to a point in extra time where the game becomes an exercise in killing the clock; short, meaningless passes, no imagination, no strategy.

Marcotti raises an interesting point, and maybe after all is said and done, PKs are the best solution. I'd just hate to see a Spain-England final come down to David Beckham at the spot needing to score to keep it going; the bloke might, well, miss.

If you think you have the answer, I'd love to hear it. Please leave it in comments and I will re-post the best in a future blog.

Subscribe to Starting Eleven

2010 World Cup Group of Death:Who's Odd Man Out? Brazil? Portugal?

You know, "Dog" spelled backward is Group of Death.

I love the whole notion of a Group of Death. I mean, there are two guarantees you get out of almost every World Cup draw: A GOD and the host being in just a pitifully easy and uninteresting group; it's a random draw, right Charlize?

Looking at the last few:

2006 -- Germany as the host is paired with Ecuador, Poland and Costa Rica. Cakewalk. 3 wins, 9 points. Finishes third overall

GOD -- Argentina, Netherlands, Ivory Coast and Serbia. Ivory Coast tooth and nail loses a pair of 2-1 decisions to Argentina and Holland, both of whom are done by the end of the quarterfinal round.

2002 -- South Korea as the host is paired with the U.S., Poland and Portugal, benefits from the U.S. upset of Portugal and goes all the way to the semis, beating Italy and Spain along the way. A dream run.

Japan as the co-host gets Belgium, Russia and Tunisia. Japan upsets a weak group then loses to semifinalist Turkey in the second round.

GOD -- Sweden, England, Argentina and Nigeria. Brutal group, chock full of political battles and quietly talented upstarts. Sweden and England escape the group. Sweden loses to Senegal in the second round; England loses to Brazil in the quarterfinals.

1998 -- France as the host gets Denmark, South Africa and Saudi Arabia. Dreadful; 3 wins, 9 points. France wins the whole thing at home.

GOD -- Nigeria, Spain, Paraguay, Bulgaria. All four teams were stellar in the '94 Cup in the USA. Spain bombed out, living up to its reputation as dogs in the big tournament. Nigeria and Paraguay move on from the group, losing to Denmark and France respectively in the second round.

Point is, it's very difficult to escape the Group of Death and win the whole thing. Looking at this year, odds are, you're going to lose either Brazil or Portugal coming out of the group stage; I think Ivory Coast is too good not to steal points from either or both. And then, for whomever does escape in second place--again this could be either Brazil or Portugal, their reward is likely Spain in the second round. How would you like to play two wars in the first round (Brazil-Portugal is the final game of the group stage--God I hope things are not decided by then) and then go on to face what is probably the best team in the world at this moment?

It's just tremendous for football fans, even more so if you're emotionally invested in any of the GOD teams.

I honestly have no idea how this will shake out. I'm certainly not of the camp that Brazil is automatic and it will come down to Portugal and Ivory Coast. I can see Brazil slipping against either. Ivory Coast is in its second straight GOD and held its own quite well; its players are older yes, but experience counts for plenty in a short tournament. And Portugal can be deadly; so talented up and down the field. But it does have Carlos Queiroz up top and that isn't going to inspire confidence in anyone [side note: too bad Scolari isn't still coaching Portugal, talk about tasty].

Can't wait for GOD. Too bad we have to wait for GOD. 185 days to go.

Subscribe to Starting Eleven

Mailbag Meandering on Tevez Ruling,South Africa World Cup, Mourinho and More

I've been rude. Like single dudes who live alone and infrequently receive guests, I don't get many comments on my posts. But to those who do take the time to leave thoughtful--even thoughtless--comments, I should do better to acknowledge them.

So in a shameless attempt to encourage more correspondence with this space, I'm going to open the mailbag this morning and share some of the better comments and attempt to answer each with some analysis, thought and wit.

Here goes:

9lives wrote in response to West Ham, Carlos Tevez Ruling a Dangerous Precedent:

Well written article. I take the viewpoint that the initial ruling was wrong, that a club who broke the rules should have been deducted points. Middlesbrough called off a game about 11 years ago because they had a depleted squad through illness. They were punished with a 3 point deduction that contributed to their relegation. One cannot of course state with any degree of accuracy that a player contributed any more than his potential replacement might have. But that's why rules are there; to maintain an equal playing field and a degree of fairness.
With regards to Atwell's shocking decision last weekend, it's accepted that these decisions even themselves out over the season. All we can do is accept that flawed logic. The Sheffield United case is different - they never had the opportunity to "even" the playing field by recruiting a player who was not entitled to play for them. Cheers.

Reply: Funny how the experts trotted out before Lord Griffiths couldn't manage to keep their own teams afloat as managers; whatcha say Graham Taylor and Frank Clark? As for my writing, me mum was big on penmanship.

Anonymous wrote in response to Unrest Around 2010 World Cup in South Africa Mounts After President Resigns:

The fact is that SA has its fair share of issues to overcome - but the country is about far more than the sum of its problems. SA is still the closest any African country will get, in a comparison to 1st world hosts. The importance of bringing an event like this to Africa is not so much about providing a spectacle for rich countries, but about providing sustained upliftment for a society whose largest problems can all be traced back to poverty. Whatever the cause of that poverty, the fact is that the only way out of it is forward movement, not retrospection and nay-saying.
So you might need to take a little longer to get to your game - but think about the guy who had to drive you there, his family and his children. Think about the fact that he will be earning a living because of you.
Isn't it maybe worthwhile putting the good of a nation, and it's people before your personal schedule? It is easy to stand on the fringe and criticize, rather show your support for a collective effort and commit to attending the event.

Reply: True, this is a character boost for South Africa, and if the tournament goes off without a hitch, likely it would spur a spike in tourism and bump the economy a bit. But let's inject a bit of realism via rhetorical questions here: Is the World Cup going to solve South Africa's poverty crisis? Or crime? No one wants to yank the World Cup away for the sake of doing it; no one! But isn't a just black eye to the country if the infrastructure isn't ready and organization is a shambles?
As for me getting to the games on time, I'll be plopped on my couch watching the matches -- unless of course you're offering to bring me over. I accept...

Jonathan Wallace wrote in response to: Mourinho: Master Manipulator, Master Manager, Masterful

Exactly! Its nice to see someone else appreciate him for what he represents. Unbridled confidence. If more people possessed it, the world would be a better place for it.

Reply: I'll say it again, Mourinho is a manager of men, and not necessarily always his own. He's picking scraps with guys from clubs big and small; Juventus' Claudio Ranieri was his latest target. Apparently, Jose doesn't think Ranieri speaks the English too good. Classic.
And no, Jonathan Wallace is not my brother, father, nor is he my uncle.

And finally, Aravind responds to Starting Eleven Football Blog Roundup:

Pretty impressive collection of blog posts. Well done dude. I'm subscribing.

Reply: Awesome Aravind; consider yourself an army of one. And no, Aravind is not my brother, father, nor is he my uncle.

Subscribe in a reader

Unrest Around 2010 World Cup in South Africa Mounts After President Resigns

It's going to take more than a dopey leopard mascot to ease the anxiety and uncertainty over South Africa's bid to successfully host the 2010 World Cup. Political reasons have marred this endeavor from the beginning, and you can be sure contingency plans are in place to hold the tournament in the U.S. or Germany, or somewhere else that's prepared in case it gets yanked out from under the South Africans.

The latest blow came yesterday when President Thabo Mbeki and 11 members of his cabinet quit their posts, including finance minister Jabu Moleketi, who was running the books for the World Cup. Not good.

Worse yet, Moleketi oversees construction of physical and transportation infrastructure and he has hinted he won't continue in that role under a new government.

FIFA, meanwhile, is saying it's a manageable situation and it's already talking with a possible replacement, African National Congress boss Jacob Zuma. BTW, Zuma is being prosecuted on corruption charges.

Nothing like a stable atmosphere for your organization's biggest event, which just happens to be the world's biggest sporting tournament behind the Olympics.

Not only has government unrest cast a pall over the organization of the Cup, but violence against tourists is a perennial problem. Yet, South Africa continues to put on a happy face and play down these problems. It is also ignoring the governemnt's support of Zimbabwe and its dictator Robert Mugabe; some liken this situation to the attention the plight in Tibet drew during the Olympics. The New York Times op-ed page has addressed this issue and called for the Cup to be removed from South Africa unless Mugabe step down.

It's sad that football has to become a political stage, and it's something to be avoided, usually at all costs. But the 2010 World Cup has disaster written all over it. FIFA is steadfast in keeping the tournament in South Africa, but at what cost? Will tourists be in danger by the out of control crime? Will the infrastructure be a nightmare, and transport between venues impossible? Does the fact that the tournament is allowed to remain in South Africa indicate a condoning of the political and oppressive situation in the country by FIFA and football fans as a whole?

These are difficult questions that no one is answering. South Africa has 21 months to get its act together; may sound like a long time, but that clock is ticking--loudly.

Capello Extending Beckham's England lifeline?

Anyone else shocked by Fabio Capello's inclination to extend David Beckham's national team career? Yeah, Becks is one cap short of 100, but he's also a few legs short of being a viable player again. He can't take two steps without getting laid up for six weeks with a bad ankle, knee or wisp of hair.

The buzzqoute about Capello so far is that he's not one to "suffer fools." Translation: he's going to sweep through the English roster and mold players to his system, not vice-versa. This would figure to jeopardize the national team longevity of Beckham, Michael Owen--maybe even Frank Lampard.

Beckham may have the sentimental vote to get is 100th cap for England and Capello is now likely toss him a bone. But Capello isn't a fan of Becks. He chopped him from the Real Madrid roster toward the end of Madrid's title run last year, and the two did not part amicably. With Capello, no doubt, anxious to put his imprint on this team immediately, it wouldn't be a shocker to see him clean house and impose his will on Day 1.

Yet, politically, it might not be a bad move, Capello may be thinking, to extend Beckham's England career in a meaningless friendly. It's doubtful it would go much further with World Cup qualifying on the horizon. Capello's mandate is qualification at a minimum, especially after the McClaren Euro debacle. He'll need to establish a tenor and a top 15 players fairly quickly; that means cementing his midfield and finding a striker for the longterm.

Should be interesting.

Co-Hosts? Save it for Regis and Kelly

A few days ago, I shared blog space with Jeff from Center Holds It. He posted an entry I wrote on the idiocy of nations co-hosting major tournaments like the World Cup or European championships. It was hosted here; I suggest you check out Center Holds It, it's loaded with great takes on football. By the way, Jeff's post is here.

Below is the entry posted over there:

Soccer’s principal governing bodies, FIFA and UEFA, have fallen in love with the notion of co-hosts for their major championships. Blame UEFA because it was first with Belgium and the Netherlands hosting the 2000 Euro, but it didn’t take long for copycat FIFA to fall in line with the 2002 World Cup taking place in Japan and South Korea.

While it may be a noble gesture to allow two countries to experience big tournaments simultaneously, exposing both to more media attention and the opportunity for massive amounts of revenue, fans are left with a soul-less event. We’re left to suffer with an inferior tournament because of FIFA’s and UEFA’s transparent motives and decision to reward mediocrity.

Look no further than next summer’s Euro; Austria and Switzerland will co-host and also earned automatic qualification for the tournament. Under normal circumstances, neither nation would get in without paying for tickets. Austria has made one previous Euro, Switzerland three. Neither has ever finished in the top four, nor has either made it out of the initial group stage of the finals.

Yet there they’ll be next summer, occupying two spots normally reserved for deserving teams. And therein lies the problem with the concept of co-hosts. If 16, 24 or 32 teams are good enough to qualify for a tournament, and two of the spots are reserved for hosts with no business being in the competition, how does UEFA or FIFA look at Nos. 17, 25 or 33 with a straight face and tell them they don’t belong.

If UEFA’s logic, for example, is spreading the wealth and the experience of hosting the tournament, fair enough. But once the host nations are excused after three games, that’s really out the door. Right now, England, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Belgium, Norway and exciting Israel are ranked higher than both Austria and Switzerland, and any of them would have a better showing than Austria or Switzerland, yet they’re on the outside looking in because of the decision to have co-hosts.

Sadly, this is a concept that isn’t going away any time soon. Poland and Ukraine are on tap to host the 2012 Euro, and Portugal and Spain are expected to make a bid for the 2018 World Cup [why? Portugal hosted a great Euro on its own in 2004.]

It’s time for FIFA and UEFA to find the courage to turn away these bids. If a country doesn’t have the infrastructure to host the game’s biggest tournaments, than it just doesn’t deserve them. It is doubtful fans would complain about somewhat permanent host nations for the Euro, in a rotation between say, England, Italy, France, Portugal, Spain and Germany. Same goes for the World Cup: Any of those European nations, along with the U.S., Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, Japan, China and perhaps Australia.

To quote a funny guy: “Two of shit, is still shit.”