Well It Seems We Were Wrong....

My intelligence communications class final project this past term was to put together a list of events that would effect US national security over the next twenty-four to thirty-six months. We mentioned the Olympics and the election in Iran. We also mentioned the 2010 World Cup. Against the discretion of my professor to look for smaller events, I focused on the Cup. I can not help it, it's the fan in me. My estimation was that the Cup would fail for infrastructure reasons. The builders of the stadiums walking out over the past six months surely brought to my mind Heysle. The last thing that FIFA needs is for a stadium to collapse because it was put together at the last moment.

Well... it seems like my analysis was a bit off. Violence against foreigners has erupted in South Africa and for the time being it doesn't look like it's going to stop. To my knowledge FIFA has never moved the site of the Cup but this could happen if the violence continues for another few months without any decrease in it. But, Bela, the Cup isn't for another two years. True. However, do you really think that FIFA will allow a country to host the tournament where the nations of the world come together. If the situation does not get better within the month, look for FIFA to begin to discuss the possibility of moving the games. Truly sad.

6+5=0

No, my math is not off on this one. This 6+5 rule is something that FIFA's president Sepp Blatter is trying to impose on the world football community. What is the 6+5 rule you might ask? It is a rule that would halt a team from fielding more than five non-national players in a teams starting eleven. Has anyone took a look at the Premiership lately? How many of the starting elevens of the the top four teams in the league have six English players in them? The answer is probably what you expected: none.

It is not that these teams do not have English players, oh they do. And lets be honest, some of them are quite good. Frank Lampard, Wayne Rooney, Steven Gerrad, and Theo Walcott are all amazing players, but it is the backbone of international players that hold these teams up. As you go down further into the Premiership, the situation evens itself out a bit more when it comes to the number of national players but I doubt the top four teams would be where they are today if it were not for their international players.

Looking around at the various other league, even in Spain, some of the better players that get noted are from Brazil and other non-national countries. This is true even in German football, although, not to the same extent. The only country out of the major world leagues that would not be greatly effected would be Seria A. The Italians, for the most part, believe in an "in house" system. I personally believe that mentality is why they field such a strong national team.

Perhaps that is one of the reasons that Blatter wants to do this. It would help foster younger nationals coming up through the academies. But he needs to take a step back and look at the bigger picture of who is really scoring goals in these league. If you took someone out of the Manchester United finishing school and put them up against some the Premierships best defenses, chances are that they would not have a chance, even if they had played for years on end.

Do I think it is the right move? Absolutely not, and both the EU and UEFA agree with me. Mark this date down in history because for once the whole footballing world might actually agree with me on something. The use of amazing international players has a two fold effect. First, for the internationals themselves, it gives them a chance to compete against some of the best players in the world and to get out of the squalor of their home countries (if they come from a squalorish country). Secondly, at the domestic level, it gives the nationals a chance to compete against some of the best players in the world. Me playing against the kids from college for four years will only stifle my playing, but if I can play against a new crop of talent from all over the globe every few years or so it will only increase the number of tools in my box that I can bring to me national squad.

Will Blatter get his way on this one? It is unlikely and it is honestly for the best that he does not. If some of the top flight teams in the Premiership were forced to play at least six English players every game, their teams would be worn out and the fans would loose interest. They pay to see big names, not Dave from Stoke or Paul from Blackpool. Happy footy all.

Global Politics and Soccer?

You bet your sweet ass they go together! I've met a lot of footy players over the years and most have been rather chill individuals, like sub-arctic... well, until you score on them. Anyways, most of them couldn't tell you the five members of the UN Security Council (UNSC), but they should really get acquainted with them if they have hopes of seeing Tibet in the World Cup ever.

We live in an amazingly connected world these days. I mean come on, there are three hundred page books and thesis work on the extent of globalization and rather or not it exists. From the footy fans perspective, I doubt the world is really all that flat because some countries simply can not seems to be able to get onto the moving ball. If you are still reading this and wondering why I brought up the UNSC in regards to this topic, here's why. FIFA, our beloved governing body, will only admit national teams that are recognized as a country/nation and the UNSC makes that decision.

This is truly sad. Football is the most popular team sport on the face of this flat earth of ours. No other sport can even begin to say that it has the fan base that the beautiful game does. But, when you start to ban teams from competition because five stuck up diplomats sitting in a building in New York fail to recognize you as a nation, how beautiful is the game?

I think it is pretty damn ugly. It is a disgraceful practice and one that you would think FIFA would not go along with. What do they loose if they allow Tibet to play? China? The Chinese can not even play decently, except their womens team and who really watches the Womens World Cup? And what about Greenland? What does FIFA really have to loose by not admitting a team from a damn country that most high school seniors in America can not find on a map?

What are the consequences here? Maybe the five security council member nations will pull their teams from the cup. Do it! That's one less grouping of teams to have to go through. And seriously, the US and the UK will not miss much by not going to the World Cup. Hell, maybe then they could devote money to building a better youth program (at least here in America). Russia has only attempted to go to four World Cups and they did not qualify for two of them. See the above paragraph for my opinion on China. Lastly, the only team that would really be hurt if their nation left FIFA would be France.

When it comes down to it, at the end of the day, the situation is rubbish! So, there is a snippet of how politics can influence something as beautiful as international football. Happy footy all. And as of this moment, I am officially boycotting the 2010 cup until FIFA can get its head out of its ass, wipe the shit from their face, and make football beautiful once again.

When the hell did Jackie Chan join FIFA?