All downhill from here...
14 Randomly Chosen Countries And The Point At Which The Reached Their Peak In The FIFA World Rankings
1. Belarus (57th from June to September 2008 - currently 84th)
2. Cameroon (11th from November 2006 to January 2007 - currently 14th)
3. Canada (40th in December 1996 and January 1997 - currently 90th)
4. Costa Rica (17th at various points between May 2003 and January 2004 - currently 53rd)
5. Finland (33rd in March 2007 - currently 55th)
6. India (94th in February and March 1996 - currently 143rd)
7. Japan (9th in February and March 1998 - currently 35th)
8. Paraguay (8th in March and July 2001 - currently 17th)
9. Poland (16th in September 2007 - currently 34th)
10. Romania (3rd in September 1997 - currently 21st)
11. San Marino (118th in September 1993 - currently 201st)
12. South Africa (16th in August 1996 - currently 76th)
13. Tunisia (19th in February 1998 - currently 46th)
14. Turkey (5th in June 2004 - currently 10th)
Showing posts with label FIFA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FIFA. Show all posts
Friday, 2 January 2009
Wednesday, 29 October 2008
All the Presidential Men (Part 7)
The penultimate part of our occasional series looking at the Presidents of FIFA throughout history.
The global game
In the early 1970's, Brazil were the true kings of world football. Crowned champions for a record third time and synonymous with the silky skills of players like Pele, Jairzinho and Carlos Alberto, the Brazilians were the embodiment of everything that was good in the game. Brazil was also about to provide FIFA with its seventh President, Joao Havelange.
In 1974, Stanley Rous' leadership of football's world governing body came to an end. He'd overseen a modest expansion of the game in many countries around the world, but some of them now wanted recognition for the way they'd developed the game to a higher standard.
Under Rous, only European and South American teams were guaranteed a place at the 1970 World Cup Finals. He remained largely unconvinced by the quality of the football being played in Africa and Asia, leaving its member federations to qualify via a series of one-sided play-offs against stronger teams.
With a growing sense of frustration, many of the younger footballing nations turned to Joao Havelange for support and it was here that Havelange, head of the Brazilian football federation at the time, saw an opportunity to force a change for the better. In the two years leading up to the 1974 Presidential election, he actively canvassed for support by making 86 foreign trips to countries far and wide, and with money from the Brazilian FA, 36 African countries were offered an all expenses paid trip for two representatives to attend the all-important FIFA conference where the next President would be elected.
His efforts paid off - just. When the votes were counted on the day of the election, Havelange was seen to have beaten Rous by a narrow margin. With the backing of Africa and Asia, the Brazilian had taken control of FIFA and immediately set about the task of repaying them for their support. By the time of the 1982 World Cup, Africa would have two representatives and Asia one, but progress in the meantime would be frustratingly slow.
One area where Havelange clearly had greater success was in the embracing of commercial partners to create a better economic foundation for FIFA. Far more money was needed to improve the development of the game around the world, and Havelange knew how to get it. By engaging in multi-million dollar sponsorship deals with companies like Adidas (who supplied the match balls for every World Cup from 1970 onwards), Havelange was able to give FIFA the firm financial footing it required.
Yet for all that, Joao Havelange couldn't help but court controversy from time to time When a volcanic eruption in Colombia caused the deaths of 21,000 people in 1985, it effectively ended the country's chances of hosting the World Cup the following year. A replacement host therefore had to be found at short notice.
The United States and Canada submitted their bids for the 1986 World Cup, but Havelange instead sent a team of inspectors to Mexico. Later, when the presentations of all three countries were made for the hosting rights, Havelange was said to have asked FIFA's delegates "Do you accept the word of the inspection team?" before calling an end to the matter. The bids from Canada and the United States weren't even considered, and Mexico were duly instated as hosts for the 1986 World Cup.
In more recent times, Joao Havelange has been accused of financial irregularities involving FIFA's former marketing partner, ISL, and even made accusations of his own this year that the World Cups of 1966 and 1974 were fixed so that the hosts could win. Yet by the 1990's, it was matters on the pitch that were proving just as troubling for the Brazilian.
The Finals of the 1990 and 1994 World Cups had ended with no goals scored from open play, and though there was some undeniably great football to be seen in both tournaments, it was clear that the sport was going through a period of transformation, with changes both good and bad taking place.
Once again it was time for FIFA to look to someone with fresh ideas and a new approach to ensure football remained on course for a secure future. Just before the start of the 1998 World Cup finals, Sepp Blatter was elected as the man to carry out that task, thereby ending the twenty-four year reign of Jean-Marie Faustin Goedefroid de Havelange.
Blatter's predecessor had achieved much during this time. He'd seen the expansion of the World Cup Finals from sixteen teams to thirty-two, the arrival of fifty new member nations (including China who re-joined after a 25-year absence) and he'd created new World Cups for women players, junior players and the indoor version of the game.
All in all then, Joao Havelange will be looked back on as a President who turned football into the sport we know today. New opportunities were created for the less fortunate players, clubs and countries of the world, all underwritten by the finances he helped to generate.
Going into a new century, football had well and truly arrived in the modern era, and one that was undoubtedly brought about by the clever Brazilian. Whether it could retain its appeal, however, would lie in the hands of a man from Switzerland.
The global game
In the early 1970's, Brazil were the true kings of world football. Crowned champions for a record third time and synonymous with the silky skills of players like Pele, Jairzinho and Carlos Alberto, the Brazilians were the embodiment of everything that was good in the game. Brazil was also about to provide FIFA with its seventh President, Joao Havelange.
In 1974, Stanley Rous' leadership of football's world governing body came to an end. He'd overseen a modest expansion of the game in many countries around the world, but some of them now wanted recognition for the way they'd developed the game to a higher standard.
Under Rous, only European and South American teams were guaranteed a place at the 1970 World Cup Finals. He remained largely unconvinced by the quality of the football being played in Africa and Asia, leaving its member federations to qualify via a series of one-sided play-offs against stronger teams.
With a growing sense of frustration, many of the younger footballing nations turned to Joao Havelange for support and it was here that Havelange, head of the Brazilian football federation at the time, saw an opportunity to force a change for the better. In the two years leading up to the 1974 Presidential election, he actively canvassed for support by making 86 foreign trips to countries far and wide, and with money from the Brazilian FA, 36 African countries were offered an all expenses paid trip for two representatives to attend the all-important FIFA conference where the next President would be elected.
His efforts paid off - just. When the votes were counted on the day of the election, Havelange was seen to have beaten Rous by a narrow margin. With the backing of Africa and Asia, the Brazilian had taken control of FIFA and immediately set about the task of repaying them for their support. By the time of the 1982 World Cup, Africa would have two representatives and Asia one, but progress in the meantime would be frustratingly slow.
One area where Havelange clearly had greater success was in the embracing of commercial partners to create a better economic foundation for FIFA. Far more money was needed to improve the development of the game around the world, and Havelange knew how to get it. By engaging in multi-million dollar sponsorship deals with companies like Adidas (who supplied the match balls for every World Cup from 1970 onwards), Havelange was able to give FIFA the firm financial footing it required.
Yet for all that, Joao Havelange couldn't help but court controversy from time to time When a volcanic eruption in Colombia caused the deaths of 21,000 people in 1985, it effectively ended the country's chances of hosting the World Cup the following year. A replacement host therefore had to be found at short notice.
The United States and Canada submitted their bids for the 1986 World Cup, but Havelange instead sent a team of inspectors to Mexico. Later, when the presentations of all three countries were made for the hosting rights, Havelange was said to have asked FIFA's delegates "Do you accept the word of the inspection team?" before calling an end to the matter. The bids from Canada and the United States weren't even considered, and Mexico were duly instated as hosts for the 1986 World Cup.
In more recent times, Joao Havelange has been accused of financial irregularities involving FIFA's former marketing partner, ISL, and even made accusations of his own this year that the World Cups of 1966 and 1974 were fixed so that the hosts could win. Yet by the 1990's, it was matters on the pitch that were proving just as troubling for the Brazilian.
The Finals of the 1990 and 1994 World Cups had ended with no goals scored from open play, and though there was some undeniably great football to be seen in both tournaments, it was clear that the sport was going through a period of transformation, with changes both good and bad taking place.
Once again it was time for FIFA to look to someone with fresh ideas and a new approach to ensure football remained on course for a secure future. Just before the start of the 1998 World Cup finals, Sepp Blatter was elected as the man to carry out that task, thereby ending the twenty-four year reign of Jean-Marie Faustin Goedefroid de Havelange.
Blatter's predecessor had achieved much during this time. He'd seen the expansion of the World Cup Finals from sixteen teams to thirty-two, the arrival of fifty new member nations (including China who re-joined after a 25-year absence) and he'd created new World Cups for women players, junior players and the indoor version of the game.
All in all then, Joao Havelange will be looked back on as a President who turned football into the sport we know today. New opportunities were created for the less fortunate players, clubs and countries of the world, all underwritten by the finances he helped to generate.
Going into a new century, football had well and truly arrived in the modern era, and one that was undoubtedly brought about by the clever Brazilian. Whether it could retain its appeal, however, would lie in the hands of a man from Switzerland.
Sunday, 27 July 2008
Some people are on the beach...
Here in London, England, it's another balmy sunny Sunday afternoon where just for once the sky is blue and the mercury in my thermometer is rising close to 29 degrees. If you close your eyes and block out the sound of passing ice cream vans and low flying aircraft, you could pretty much believe you're on a beautiful beach somewhere in the south of France, lounging around in the sun as the approaching waves gently kiss your toes.
Not that the south of France is the place to go to right now if a peaceful snooze on the beach is what you're after. You're probably quite likely to get woken up by the crowds of people gathered around to watch the Beach Soccer World Cup, especially if Marseille is your destination of choice.
Yes it's all going on down there. The fourth FIFA Beach Soccer World Cup has been underway since July 17th and for the first time ever, it's not been held in Rio de Janeiro. Arguably the home of beach football, Brazil has had the privilege of staging the competition every year since 2005 and though we can't prove it, home advantage may have been a factor as they managed to win the contest every single time before the teams arrived in Marseille earlier this month.
So what do we make of this strange and rarefied form of the beautiful game that has suddenly gone legit? Can it be treated seriously? Should it be treated seriously?
Personally, I can't watch it on TV or the web with any great sense of enjoyment or a desire to be playing it myself. For a start, there's the issue of running on sand, and we all know how hard that is. Second only to running through a swimming pool full of water, running on sand is one of the most tiring things you can do. Add to that the searing heat of the sun burning your feet as you delicately tippy-toe across the playing surface and you've got one of the most tiring and slightly masochistic things you can do.
Then there's the game play. Because passing a ball along the sand doesn't guarantee it will reach its intended recipient, players tend to resort to shooting from a long way out, thus doing away with the need to pass altogether. Even shooting isn't the easiest of things to do as players inevitably find themselves kicking into the sand in order to get under the ball to gain some lift. That's why when nearly every beach soccer game game kicks off, you'll often see one player flick the ball up into the air for the other to volley in the direction of the opposing goal.
By now you might be wondering what the attraction of beach soccer might be. It's tiring to play, potentially painful on the feat and players have difficulty passing and shooting. What's there to like? Well never fear: FIFA have ensured that all beach soccer matches adhere to a strict set of rules so that the whole thing doesn't descend into an absolute farce.
Er, actually that's wrong. The rules and regulations are where the comedy really begins. Here are some of the wonderful virtues of the world game 'sur la plage', as they say on the Cote d'Azur.
For a start, the pitch is marked out with (and here I quote the official FIFA documentation) "an imaginary halfway line", marked by a red flag on either side of the pitch. So already we're having to use the darkest creative recesses of our mind to know where the halfway point on the pitch is, but get this - "the middle of the imaginary line [i.e. the centre spot] is the EXACT position for the kick-off and certain free kicks." 'Exact' in a sort of imprecise way, then?
There are also two other imaginary lines crossing the pitch to demark a zone nine metres from each goal which effective forms a sort of penalty area. Unfortunately a healthy use of the imagination is required again to determine whether someone was inside or outside the area when a player was fouled.
Similarly there are no lines marked between the goal posts either, so if Sir Geoff Hurst was to stroll out in his Bermuda shorts and hit one of his trademark shots that thundered down off the crossbar, no-one would know if a goal should be given - not even if you were a Russian linesman by trade.
Elsewhere there are other strange curiosities that set beach soccer apart from its more traditional older parent. Games last for 36 minutes and are split into three periods of 12 minutes each, rather than two periods of 45 as is the norm. During each match, substitutes can come and go as they please and as often as they like - in fact players that have already left the pitch can re-enter it at a later stage if they want to.
One curious thing to note, however, is that when a player is due to join the field of play to replace his departing colleague, he has to wait by the side of the pitch holding his own number card to denote the player being replaced. When the referee gives his signal, the outgoing player can leave the pitch and as he does so will take the number card from his colleague and take his place on the bench - all without having to stop the game. A kind of 'do-it-yourself substitution', if you will.
And so it goes on - the more you read the documentation, the stranger it gets. Quite honestly, it all seems like a joke to me, whichever way you look at it. Perhaps it's a sport that's exonerated by its ability to appeal on a spectator level, but let's face it - whether you're watching a match in person or on TV, are you really going to be giving it your complete and undivided attention given the plethora of near-naked members of the opposite sex hanging around nearby? No, thought not.
It's a beach, for heaven's sake - a place to relax in the sun, chill out and do as little as feasibly possible. Sure, throw a frisbee now and then if you like, but don't for a moment think it's the best place to hold an international football tournament. It's not right, it's not clever, and it doesn't impress genuine football fans.
That's my opinion, and I have spoken. Now if you don't mind, I've got some sunbathing to do...
Not that the south of France is the place to go to right now if a peaceful snooze on the beach is what you're after. You're probably quite likely to get woken up by the crowds of people gathered around to watch the Beach Soccer World Cup, especially if Marseille is your destination of choice.
Yes it's all going on down there. The fourth FIFA Beach Soccer World Cup has been underway since July 17th and for the first time ever, it's not been held in Rio de Janeiro. Arguably the home of beach football, Brazil has had the privilege of staging the competition every year since 2005 and though we can't prove it, home advantage may have been a factor as they managed to win the contest every single time before the teams arrived in Marseille earlier this month.
So what do we make of this strange and rarefied form of the beautiful game that has suddenly gone legit? Can it be treated seriously? Should it be treated seriously?
Personally, I can't watch it on TV or the web with any great sense of enjoyment or a desire to be playing it myself. For a start, there's the issue of running on sand, and we all know how hard that is. Second only to running through a swimming pool full of water, running on sand is one of the most tiring things you can do. Add to that the searing heat of the sun burning your feet as you delicately tippy-toe across the playing surface and you've got one of the most tiring and slightly masochistic things you can do.
Then there's the game play. Because passing a ball along the sand doesn't guarantee it will reach its intended recipient, players tend to resort to shooting from a long way out, thus doing away with the need to pass altogether. Even shooting isn't the easiest of things to do as players inevitably find themselves kicking into the sand in order to get under the ball to gain some lift. That's why when nearly every beach soccer game game kicks off, you'll often see one player flick the ball up into the air for the other to volley in the direction of the opposing goal.
By now you might be wondering what the attraction of beach soccer might be. It's tiring to play, potentially painful on the feat and players have difficulty passing and shooting. What's there to like? Well never fear: FIFA have ensured that all beach soccer matches adhere to a strict set of rules so that the whole thing doesn't descend into an absolute farce.
Er, actually that's wrong. The rules and regulations are where the comedy really begins. Here are some of the wonderful virtues of the world game 'sur la plage', as they say on the Cote d'Azur.
For a start, the pitch is marked out with (and here I quote the official FIFA documentation) "an imaginary halfway line", marked by a red flag on either side of the pitch. So already we're having to use the darkest creative recesses of our mind to know where the halfway point on the pitch is, but get this - "the middle of the imaginary line [i.e. the centre spot] is the EXACT position for the kick-off and certain free kicks." 'Exact' in a sort of imprecise way, then?
There are also two other imaginary lines crossing the pitch to demark a zone nine metres from each goal which effective forms a sort of penalty area. Unfortunately a healthy use of the imagination is required again to determine whether someone was inside or outside the area when a player was fouled.
Similarly there are no lines marked between the goal posts either, so if Sir Geoff Hurst was to stroll out in his Bermuda shorts and hit one of his trademark shots that thundered down off the crossbar, no-one would know if a goal should be given - not even if you were a Russian linesman by trade.
Elsewhere there are other strange curiosities that set beach soccer apart from its more traditional older parent. Games last for 36 minutes and are split into three periods of 12 minutes each, rather than two periods of 45 as is the norm. During each match, substitutes can come and go as they please and as often as they like - in fact players that have already left the pitch can re-enter it at a later stage if they want to.
One curious thing to note, however, is that when a player is due to join the field of play to replace his departing colleague, he has to wait by the side of the pitch holding his own number card to denote the player being replaced. When the referee gives his signal, the outgoing player can leave the pitch and as he does so will take the number card from his colleague and take his place on the bench - all without having to stop the game. A kind of 'do-it-yourself substitution', if you will.
And so it goes on - the more you read the documentation, the stranger it gets. Quite honestly, it all seems like a joke to me, whichever way you look at it. Perhaps it's a sport that's exonerated by its ability to appeal on a spectator level, but let's face it - whether you're watching a match in person or on TV, are you really going to be giving it your complete and undivided attention given the plethora of near-naked members of the opposite sex hanging around nearby? No, thought not.
It's a beach, for heaven's sake - a place to relax in the sun, chill out and do as little as feasibly possible. Sure, throw a frisbee now and then if you like, but don't for a moment think it's the best place to hold an international football tournament. It's not right, it's not clever, and it doesn't impress genuine football fans.
That's my opinion, and I have spoken. Now if you don't mind, I've got some sunbathing to do...
Wednesday, 2 July 2008
Rank out of order
FIFA have just published their latest World Ranking table and one thing is immediately obvious - the effect of Euro 2008 and some of the recent World Cup qualifiers has given the global pecking order a major shake up.
To begin with, European champions Spain (sorry, that still makes us laugh) are the new leaders following last weekend's win in the Final over Germany. They were third last month, but now take top spot from Argentina who drop to SIXTH following two draws in the recent South American qualifiers for South Africa 2010 (more of which follows soon).
Italy move up one place to second, deposing Brazil who drop to fourth (they picked up only one point out of the six available in their recent pair of World Cup matches) and Euro 2008 runners-up Germany climb two places to third.
Of the other teams that featured prominently in Euro 2008, the Netherlands leap from 10th place to 5th, Croatia jump eight places to 7th and Russia surge their way up from 24th to 11th. Turkey are also big winners in the July 2008 rankings, moving up from 20th to 14th.
Naturally enough, those teams who failed to impress (and we're looking at you, France, the Czech Republic and Greece) all fell further down the pecking order. Greece, European champions in 2004, suffered particularly badly after their First Round exit in 2008, falling ten places to 18th.
But for a team that wasn't even involved in Euro 2008, it's England that's stolen all the headlines. They're now ranked 15TH having played only friendlies since November 2007 - a drop of six places. That puts them just one place above Scotland, who move up a position, and just five above Ghana.
A special mention this month, though, goes to Suriname, the small South American country who rose 58 places to 87th in this month's FIFA World Rankings. A recent win in both legs of their recent World Cup qualifier over Guyana means Suriname (population: 470,000) are now ranked just four places below China (population: 1.3 billion).
Fabio Capello, you've seen how it's done...
To begin with, European champions Spain (sorry, that still makes us laugh) are the new leaders following last weekend's win in the Final over Germany. They were third last month, but now take top spot from Argentina who drop to SIXTH following two draws in the recent South American qualifiers for South Africa 2010 (more of which follows soon).
Italy move up one place to second, deposing Brazil who drop to fourth (they picked up only one point out of the six available in their recent pair of World Cup matches) and Euro 2008 runners-up Germany climb two places to third.
Of the other teams that featured prominently in Euro 2008, the Netherlands leap from 10th place to 5th, Croatia jump eight places to 7th and Russia surge their way up from 24th to 11th. Turkey are also big winners in the July 2008 rankings, moving up from 20th to 14th.
Naturally enough, those teams who failed to impress (and we're looking at you, France, the Czech Republic and Greece) all fell further down the pecking order. Greece, European champions in 2004, suffered particularly badly after their First Round exit in 2008, falling ten places to 18th.
But for a team that wasn't even involved in Euro 2008, it's England that's stolen all the headlines. They're now ranked 15TH having played only friendlies since November 2007 - a drop of six places. That puts them just one place above Scotland, who move up a position, and just five above Ghana.
A special mention this month, though, goes to Suriname, the small South American country who rose 58 places to 87th in this month's FIFA World Rankings. A recent win in both legs of their recent World Cup qualifier over Guyana means Suriname (population: 470,000) are now ranked just four places below China (population: 1.3 billion).
Fabio Capello, you've seen how it's done...
Monday, 17 March 2008
All the Presidential Men (Part 6)
The sixth part of our occasional series looking at the Presidents of FIFA throughout history.
A divided party
The late-1950's were a revolutionary time in world soccer. The African Football Confederation (CAF) had been founded in 1957 to develop the game in that part of the world and the 1958 World Cup in Sweden had witnessed the first real wave of Brazilian dominance featuring the skills and showmanship of Vava, Garrincha and Pelé.
Yet this was also a time of change and one which Stanley Rous found himself thrown into when he became FIFA President in 1961.
Rous was born in Mutford, England in 1895 and his interest in football soon came to dominate his life in one form or another. He played as a goalkeeper at amateur level, was a sports teacher at a grammar school and went onto become a referee where he officiated in the 1934 FA Cup Final and in FIFA international matches.
His refereeing career behind him, he took up a role in the administration of football and was the Football Association's secretary from 1934 to 1962. It was during this time that Rous was assigned the task of rewriting the Laws of the Game to make them easier to interpret, and this he was seen to have achieved.
So when FIFA looked to attain the services of someone that could oversee a period of expansion and change in world football, Rous appeared to have all the credentials and he assumed the role of President following the death of fellow Englishman Arthur Drewry in 1961.
With the creation of the CAF a few years prior to his arrival, a big issue was looming in the background which would see many of the African delegates looking towards Rous for guidance. From 1948, South Africa had implemented a system of apartheid which operated a form of legalised segregation in its country that many of its international allies were opposed to. The CAF moved quickly to ban South Africa from being one of its members accordingly and asked Stanley Rous to do the same within FIFA.
Rous, however, had a dim view of taking such measures and took the ideological high ground that every country had a right to be a member of FIFA regardless of its politics. He felt that it wasn't FIFA's place to ostracise member nations on racial, economic or political matters, so when an Ethiopian delegation pushed for South Africa to be banned during the 1964 Olympics, it came as no surprise when Rous threw out the proposal.
The CAF were also becoming irritated by the fact that none of its countries were being given automatic places in the World Cup Finals, unlike their European and South American counterparts. African teams, and those from Asia were having to qualify via play-offs which would generally see them eliminated from the competition. The CAF felt this was unfair and wanted to see their continent represented along with the others taking part. Strangely, the 1958 and 1962 World Cups featured no African or Asian teams at all, and though North Korea were to represent the latter in 1966, Africa would remain unrepresented until 1970.
Though Stanley Rous was no doubt delighted to see England win the 1966 World Cup, the bigger picture told a tale of an ever more divided FIFA. The African countries were not happy with the way they were being treated by Rous and the South Americans were keen to see a representative of their own taking his position. Despite very well organised World Cups in England and Mexico, Rous' days were starting to look numbered as new member nations arrived, looking for a figurehead to advocate their interests.
Seizing his opportunity to take advantage of the situation was João Havelange, former President of the Brazilian Sports Confederation. He saw an opening to depose Stanley Rous by gaining the support of the South American and African countries along with many smaller nations that felt their importance was being overlooked.
When FIFA's 1974 Presidential Election was held, Havelange knew just what to do to install himself as their new leader, and it would bring an end to Stanley Rous' controversial thirteen year spell in charge, much to the contentment of many.
A divided party
The late-1950's were a revolutionary time in world soccer. The African Football Confederation (CAF) had been founded in 1957 to develop the game in that part of the world and the 1958 World Cup in Sweden had witnessed the first real wave of Brazilian dominance featuring the skills and showmanship of Vava, Garrincha and Pelé.
Yet this was also a time of change and one which Stanley Rous found himself thrown into when he became FIFA President in 1961.
Rous was born in Mutford, England in 1895 and his interest in football soon came to dominate his life in one form or another. He played as a goalkeeper at amateur level, was a sports teacher at a grammar school and went onto become a referee where he officiated in the 1934 FA Cup Final and in FIFA international matches.
His refereeing career behind him, he took up a role in the administration of football and was the Football Association's secretary from 1934 to 1962. It was during this time that Rous was assigned the task of rewriting the Laws of the Game to make them easier to interpret, and this he was seen to have achieved.
So when FIFA looked to attain the services of someone that could oversee a period of expansion and change in world football, Rous appeared to have all the credentials and he assumed the role of President following the death of fellow Englishman Arthur Drewry in 1961.
With the creation of the CAF a few years prior to his arrival, a big issue was looming in the background which would see many of the African delegates looking towards Rous for guidance. From 1948, South Africa had implemented a system of apartheid which operated a form of legalised segregation in its country that many of its international allies were opposed to. The CAF moved quickly to ban South Africa from being one of its members accordingly and asked Stanley Rous to do the same within FIFA.
Rous, however, had a dim view of taking such measures and took the ideological high ground that every country had a right to be a member of FIFA regardless of its politics. He felt that it wasn't FIFA's place to ostracise member nations on racial, economic or political matters, so when an Ethiopian delegation pushed for South Africa to be banned during the 1964 Olympics, it came as no surprise when Rous threw out the proposal.
The CAF were also becoming irritated by the fact that none of its countries were being given automatic places in the World Cup Finals, unlike their European and South American counterparts. African teams, and those from Asia were having to qualify via play-offs which would generally see them eliminated from the competition. The CAF felt this was unfair and wanted to see their continent represented along with the others taking part. Strangely, the 1958 and 1962 World Cups featured no African or Asian teams at all, and though North Korea were to represent the latter in 1966, Africa would remain unrepresented until 1970.
Though Stanley Rous was no doubt delighted to see England win the 1966 World Cup, the bigger picture told a tale of an ever more divided FIFA. The African countries were not happy with the way they were being treated by Rous and the South Americans were keen to see a representative of their own taking his position. Despite very well organised World Cups in England and Mexico, Rous' days were starting to look numbered as new member nations arrived, looking for a figurehead to advocate their interests.
Seizing his opportunity to take advantage of the situation was João Havelange, former President of the Brazilian Sports Confederation. He saw an opening to depose Stanley Rous by gaining the support of the South American and African countries along with many smaller nations that felt their importance was being overlooked.
When FIFA's 1974 Presidential Election was held, Havelange knew just what to do to install himself as their new leader, and it would bring an end to Stanley Rous' controversial thirteen year spell in charge, much to the contentment of many.
Wednesday, 5 December 2007
All the Presidential Men (Part 5)
Three Presidents in six years
The legendary Jules Rimet retired as President of FIFA following the 1954 World Cup and in so doing left his successor with a tough act to follow. Here was a man who led the organisation for thirty-three years in which a World War forced him to hide the World Cup trophy under his bed to evade the gaze of enemy soldiers. He ensured the World Cup competition got off to a safe and steady beginning and saw the number of member nations increase from 24 to 82 during his reign.
When Rimet stood down at the start of 1955, his replacement turned out to be none other than his Vice-President, Rodolphe Seeldrayers. Seeldrayers was born in Germany in 1876 but spent much of his life competing in and helping to develop many different sports in Belgium.
He officiated in the Olympic Games football competition in 1920 and seven years later was given the role of Vice-President at FIFA. During the time leading up to his appointment, Seeldrayers was a key figure in the ongoing debate about amateurism in sport, but though he preferred all players to be non-professional, he also accepted that in reality more and more players were turning their backs on the amateur ideals while still playing the game in the appropriate spirit.
Sadly, Seeldrayers never got to apply his ideas and beliefs to the post-war game to any great exent. Just a year after his election as President of FIFA, he died following a period of illness, aged 78.
In 1956, FIFA elected their second President in as many years. Arthur Drewry had been acting in a caretaker role following Seeldrayers death, but a year later he was given the top job on a permanent basis and immediately found himself planning for the next World Cup in Sweden in 1958.
He arrived as someone with experience of administrating in football yet had also flirted with controversy in his earlier days. Drewry had been appointed Chairman of the Football Association in 1955 and had previously been President of the Football League, but it was around this time that one of the most embarrassing episodes in English football history was credited to him.
In the 1950 World Cup Finals, England were due to play the United States. As far as the English were concerned, it would be a mere formality and there was realistically only one team in it. What few could have foreseen, however, was the 1-0 defeat the Americans inflicted on England, and when a scapegoat was being sought, the finger of blame finally pointed to Drewry.
Though Walter Winterbottom was the England team manager during the Finals in Brazil that year, it's said that Arthur Drewry (with his more senior authority) had appointed himself as the man to select the team instead. The end result left England desperately hanging onto a place in the competition which they soon lost.
Despite this, FIFA put Drewry in charge in 1956, but sadly he, too, was to enjoy an all-too-short spell as FIFA President when he also died in office, just before the fifth anniversary of his appointment in 1961. It would be a further six months before the world governing body would appoint a permanent successor, but when they did, they had somewhat better luck. The job was given to a former referee who went on to help rewrite the very Laws of the Game, and his name was Stanley Rous...
The legendary Jules Rimet retired as President of FIFA following the 1954 World Cup and in so doing left his successor with a tough act to follow. Here was a man who led the organisation for thirty-three years in which a World War forced him to hide the World Cup trophy under his bed to evade the gaze of enemy soldiers. He ensured the World Cup competition got off to a safe and steady beginning and saw the number of member nations increase from 24 to 82 during his reign.
When Rimet stood down at the start of 1955, his replacement turned out to be none other than his Vice-President, Rodolphe Seeldrayers. Seeldrayers was born in Germany in 1876 but spent much of his life competing in and helping to develop many different sports in Belgium.
He officiated in the Olympic Games football competition in 1920 and seven years later was given the role of Vice-President at FIFA. During the time leading up to his appointment, Seeldrayers was a key figure in the ongoing debate about amateurism in sport, but though he preferred all players to be non-professional, he also accepted that in reality more and more players were turning their backs on the amateur ideals while still playing the game in the appropriate spirit.
Sadly, Seeldrayers never got to apply his ideas and beliefs to the post-war game to any great exent. Just a year after his election as President of FIFA, he died following a period of illness, aged 78.
In 1956, FIFA elected their second President in as many years. Arthur Drewry had been acting in a caretaker role following Seeldrayers death, but a year later he was given the top job on a permanent basis and immediately found himself planning for the next World Cup in Sweden in 1958.
He arrived as someone with experience of administrating in football yet had also flirted with controversy in his earlier days. Drewry had been appointed Chairman of the Football Association in 1955 and had previously been President of the Football League, but it was around this time that one of the most embarrassing episodes in English football history was credited to him.
In the 1950 World Cup Finals, England were due to play the United States. As far as the English were concerned, it would be a mere formality and there was realistically only one team in it. What few could have foreseen, however, was the 1-0 defeat the Americans inflicted on England, and when a scapegoat was being sought, the finger of blame finally pointed to Drewry.
Though Walter Winterbottom was the England team manager during the Finals in Brazil that year, it's said that Arthur Drewry (with his more senior authority) had appointed himself as the man to select the team instead. The end result left England desperately hanging onto a place in the competition which they soon lost.
Despite this, FIFA put Drewry in charge in 1956, but sadly he, too, was to enjoy an all-too-short spell as FIFA President when he also died in office, just before the fifth anniversary of his appointment in 1961. It would be a further six months before the world governing body would appoint a permanent successor, but when they did, they had somewhat better luck. The job was given to a former referee who went on to help rewrite the very Laws of the Game, and his name was Stanley Rous...
Monday, 3 December 2007
World Player of the Year? Yeah, whatever...
Two weeks from today, FIFA will announce its World Player of the Year at a glittering gala in Zurich. The three nominees for 2007 are Cristiano Ronaldo (Manchester United and Portugal), Lionel Messi (Barcelona and Argentina) and Kaka (AC Milan and Brazil), which leaves us with the ultimate question: not 'Who will win the award this year?' but 'Does anybody really care?'
Forgive me if I sound like an old curmudgeon, but as award ceremonies go, this one comes bottom of my list when it comes to relevance and general interest.
It shouldn't do, of course. 'World Player of the Year' is a title which should be legendary amongst players and fans alike. To know that your team either features or is playing against someone that has been ranked above all others on the planet should send a tingle down your spine. So why doesn't it?
Well first of all, there's FIFA's ability to suck the excitement out of every fanciful occasion it organises from the World Cup Finals Draw downwards. You know the kind of thing - some guy in his mid-thirties wearing a sharp suit and the sort of smile you only see on a satellite shopping channel trying to waffle his way professionally yet cheesily through a running order that would be far better off without him.
He's usually accompanied by a small selection of former or current football players he's obliged to talk to briefly, all of whom give the impression they'd rather not be there. They're being watched by a sizeable audience of invited guests from 'the world of football' who aren't laughing at any of the jokes and are perpetually a matter of minutes away from dying an early death due to terminal boredom.
Then there are the nominees. This year, amazingly, we're spared the recent band of regulars (i.e. Ronaldinho, Zinedine Zidane, Thierry Henry) but the damage, you feel, has already been done. Year after year of seeing the usual suspects leaves you with a distinct feeling of deja-vu. Even this year's trio of star names look familiar as though they've all been here once before, yet strangely they haven't.
Then there's the 'World' bit of the title. How often has the World Player of the Year been playing for a club that's not European or South American? The answer: never. George Weah came pretty close in 1995, but despite being born in Liberia, he was actually playing for AC Milan at the time.
And to get really technical for a moment, of the 29 players who finished 1st, 2nd or 3rd in FIFA's previous sixteen World Player galas, only three have been defenders and one a goalkeeper. Hardly a fair recognition of the talents that every player has regardless of the position he plays in, is it?
So please forgive me if I'm not on the edge of my seat eagerly awaiting this supposedly important announcement. I just feel that all of us as football fans have our own opinion of who the best player in the world is, and for those of us that don't, it isn't of that much relevance anyway. We all want to see our club and country win whenever they play, and that, for me, is the very essence of what's important about football as every individual fan sees it.
Forgive me if I sound like an old curmudgeon, but as award ceremonies go, this one comes bottom of my list when it comes to relevance and general interest.
It shouldn't do, of course. 'World Player of the Year' is a title which should be legendary amongst players and fans alike. To know that your team either features or is playing against someone that has been ranked above all others on the planet should send a tingle down your spine. So why doesn't it?
Well first of all, there's FIFA's ability to suck the excitement out of every fanciful occasion it organises from the World Cup Finals Draw downwards. You know the kind of thing - some guy in his mid-thirties wearing a sharp suit and the sort of smile you only see on a satellite shopping channel trying to waffle his way professionally yet cheesily through a running order that would be far better off without him.
He's usually accompanied by a small selection of former or current football players he's obliged to talk to briefly, all of whom give the impression they'd rather not be there. They're being watched by a sizeable audience of invited guests from 'the world of football' who aren't laughing at any of the jokes and are perpetually a matter of minutes away from dying an early death due to terminal boredom.
Then there are the nominees. This year, amazingly, we're spared the recent band of regulars (i.e. Ronaldinho, Zinedine Zidane, Thierry Henry) but the damage, you feel, has already been done. Year after year of seeing the usual suspects leaves you with a distinct feeling of deja-vu. Even this year's trio of star names look familiar as though they've all been here once before, yet strangely they haven't.
Then there's the 'World' bit of the title. How often has the World Player of the Year been playing for a club that's not European or South American? The answer: never. George Weah came pretty close in 1995, but despite being born in Liberia, he was actually playing for AC Milan at the time.
And to get really technical for a moment, of the 29 players who finished 1st, 2nd or 3rd in FIFA's previous sixteen World Player galas, only three have been defenders and one a goalkeeper. Hardly a fair recognition of the talents that every player has regardless of the position he plays in, is it?
So please forgive me if I'm not on the edge of my seat eagerly awaiting this supposedly important announcement. I just feel that all of us as football fans have our own opinion of who the best player in the world is, and for those of us that don't, it isn't of that much relevance anyway. We all want to see our club and country win whenever they play, and that, for me, is the very essence of what's important about football as every individual fan sees it.
Tuesday, 13 November 2007
Vision of a Super League future...
Speaking on the BBC TV programme Inside Sport last night, Celtic manager Gordon Strachan made clear his belief that in the not-too-distant future the Champions League would be replaced by a form of European Super League.
In reply to the oft-repeated suggestion that Celtic and Rangers might one day join the Premier League in order to benefit from playing sterner opposition, Strachan said:
"I think in years to come there will be a European league with 54 or 60 clubs. That's the way everybody will get round it.
"There will be a new structure, a new body" he went on. "The powers that be, the businessmen coming into football now, will say 'forget FIFA, forget UEFA - we're so powerful, we'll have three leagues with the best 60 clubs'.
"And you know what? Preposterous and unthinkable though it might seem at the moment, I personally think it'll happen too. By my reckoning, I'll see it towards the end of my lifetime, which in real terms means 'by 2050.'"
Anyway, we here at Some People Are On The Pitch like a bit of prophesying so we thought we'd put our thinking caps on and try and work out what a European Super League would look like based loosely on the best that the continent has to offer right now.
Though this was anything but a scientific experiment, we were quick to realise that there are any number of ways you could calculate such a metaphoric notion. How many clubs would you allow per country? At the moment, the most you'll find is four, so that's the maximum figure we adopted for our own means.
Yet could this figure rise higher? Knowing the way big business and high finance gets involved in football these days, I for one wouldn't be surprised if a European Super League might end up featuring anything up to eight big clubs from places such as England, Germany, Italy and Spain.
And what of the smaller clubs and the countries they derive from? How many places would they be allowed in a system featuring three leagues of twenty clubs? Again, the cynic in me can see the lesser lights on the continent barely getting a look in.
Luckily for us in our fair-minded, level-headed fantasy world, we can put that straight though. What we've therefore done in our allegorical list is allowed at least one club to take part from most, although not all, the main countries in Europe.
So here it is then - your first glimpse at a future world where, according to Gordon Strachan, FIFA and UEFA would look on helplessly as an independent body took over the running of European football's biggest competition. Ladies and gentlemen, we give you the European Super League (sponsored by Some People Are On The Pitch...)
League 1
Arsenal (ENG)
Barcelona (SPA)
Bayern Munich (GER)
Benfica (POR)
Bremen (GER)
Chelsea (ENG)
Dynamo Kyiv (UKR)
Internazionale (ITA)
Lazio (ITA)
Liverpool (ENG)
Lyon (FRA)
Man. United (ENG)
Milan (ITA)
Porto (POR)
Real Madrid (SPA)
Roma (ITA)
Schalke (GER)
Sevilla (SPA)
Stuttgart (GER)
Valencia (SPA)
League 2
Ajax (NED)
Anderlecht (BEL)
AZ (NED)
Besiktas (TUR)
Bordeaux (FRA)
Celtic (SCO)
Club Brugge (BEL)
CSKA Moskva (RUS)
Dinamo Zagreb (CRO)
Fenerbahce (TUR)
Galatasaray (TUR)
Marseille (FRA)
Olympiacos (GRE)
Panathinaikos (GRE)
PSV (NED)
Slavia Prague (CZE)
Sparta Prague (CZE)
Sporting (POR)
Steaua (ROM)
Zenit (RUS)
League 3
AaB (DEN)
AIK Solna (SWE)
Anorthosis (CYP)
Basel (SWZ)
Brann (NOR)
Copenhagen (DEN)
CSKA Sofia (BUL)
Drogheda (IRE)
Groningen (SWE)
Hajduk Split (CRO)
Hapoel Tel Aviv (ISR)
Maccabi Tel Aviv (ISR)
Rangers (SCO)
Ried (AUT)
Rosenborg (NOR)
Salzburg (AUT)
Shakhtar (UKR)
Spartak Moscow (RUS)
Tampere (FIN)
Zurich (SWZ)
A reminder then that this is just a bit of fun - if we've put a team in the wrong league, don't get shirty with us! It's just our spin on how a European Super League might look.
That said, given the lists above, who would you put in which league and who do you think might win or be relegated in each case? Let us know what your imagination's telling you, or if you have an opinion about whether a European Super League is even viable, tell us that too. We look forward to hearing your thoughts...
In reply to the oft-repeated suggestion that Celtic and Rangers might one day join the Premier League in order to benefit from playing sterner opposition, Strachan said:
"I think in years to come there will be a European league with 54 or 60 clubs. That's the way everybody will get round it.
"There will be a new structure, a new body" he went on. "The powers that be, the businessmen coming into football now, will say 'forget FIFA, forget UEFA - we're so powerful, we'll have three leagues with the best 60 clubs'.
"And you know what? Preposterous and unthinkable though it might seem at the moment, I personally think it'll happen too. By my reckoning, I'll see it towards the end of my lifetime, which in real terms means 'by 2050.'"
Anyway, we here at Some People Are On The Pitch like a bit of prophesying so we thought we'd put our thinking caps on and try and work out what a European Super League would look like based loosely on the best that the continent has to offer right now.
Though this was anything but a scientific experiment, we were quick to realise that there are any number of ways you could calculate such a metaphoric notion. How many clubs would you allow per country? At the moment, the most you'll find is four, so that's the maximum figure we adopted for our own means.
Yet could this figure rise higher? Knowing the way big business and high finance gets involved in football these days, I for one wouldn't be surprised if a European Super League might end up featuring anything up to eight big clubs from places such as England, Germany, Italy and Spain.
And what of the smaller clubs and the countries they derive from? How many places would they be allowed in a system featuring three leagues of twenty clubs? Again, the cynic in me can see the lesser lights on the continent barely getting a look in.
Luckily for us in our fair-minded, level-headed fantasy world, we can put that straight though. What we've therefore done in our allegorical list is allowed at least one club to take part from most, although not all, the main countries in Europe.
So here it is then - your first glimpse at a future world where, according to Gordon Strachan, FIFA and UEFA would look on helplessly as an independent body took over the running of European football's biggest competition. Ladies and gentlemen, we give you the European Super League (sponsored by Some People Are On The Pitch...)
League 1
Arsenal (ENG)
Barcelona (SPA)
Bayern Munich (GER)
Benfica (POR)
Bremen (GER)
Chelsea (ENG)
Dynamo Kyiv (UKR)
Internazionale (ITA)
Lazio (ITA)
Liverpool (ENG)
Lyon (FRA)
Man. United (ENG)
Milan (ITA)
Porto (POR)
Real Madrid (SPA)
Roma (ITA)
Schalke (GER)
Sevilla (SPA)
Stuttgart (GER)
Valencia (SPA)
League 2
Ajax (NED)
Anderlecht (BEL)
AZ (NED)
Besiktas (TUR)
Bordeaux (FRA)
Celtic (SCO)
Club Brugge (BEL)
CSKA Moskva (RUS)
Dinamo Zagreb (CRO)
Fenerbahce (TUR)
Galatasaray (TUR)
Marseille (FRA)
Olympiacos (GRE)
Panathinaikos (GRE)
PSV (NED)
Slavia Prague (CZE)
Sparta Prague (CZE)
Sporting (POR)
Steaua (ROM)
Zenit (RUS)
League 3
AaB (DEN)
AIK Solna (SWE)
Anorthosis (CYP)
Basel (SWZ)
Brann (NOR)
Copenhagen (DEN)
CSKA Sofia (BUL)
Drogheda (IRE)
Groningen (SWE)
Hajduk Split (CRO)
Hapoel Tel Aviv (ISR)
Maccabi Tel Aviv (ISR)
Rangers (SCO)
Ried (AUT)
Rosenborg (NOR)
Salzburg (AUT)
Shakhtar (UKR)
Spartak Moscow (RUS)
Tampere (FIN)
Zurich (SWZ)
A reminder then that this is just a bit of fun - if we've put a team in the wrong league, don't get shirty with us! It's just our spin on how a European Super League might look.
That said, given the lists above, who would you put in which league and who do you think might win or be relegated in each case? Let us know what your imagination's telling you, or if you have an opinion about whether a European Super League is even viable, tell us that too. We look forward to hearing your thoughts...
Wednesday, 31 October 2007
Football's coming home
Football’s coming home. At last.
Well that’s the hope of many an England supporter and the English FA as they confirm that England will bid to host the 2018 World Cup.
Following FIFA’s announcement on Monday that the previous rotation policy will be discontinued, and the positive comments made by FIFA President Sepp Blatter, FA Chairman Geoff Thompson said: “I’m delighted to announce our intention to bid to host the World Cup in 2018.
“The tremendous support from Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his government has also been a key consideration in today’s decision.
“I’m delighted The FA Board have been so positive in their support for a bid. It would be tremendous for English football and the whole country if we are successful.”
FA Chief Executive Brian Barwick said: “It is very clear that the English football public wants to see the World Cup back in this country”, highlighting some of the key points for England’s bid:-
Maximising support for England internationally
Financing the bid and financial planning for the tournament
Forming a bid team and who will lead it
Identifying the stadiums and training facilities to be used
Working with all stakeholders to ensure we have infrastructure in place to support the tournament – transport, hotels, communications etc.
Plans for supporters – domestic and international
The tournament’s legacy – for football and the whole country
Ensuring the tournament is inclusive to everyone
Making England the number one bid and to host the best World Cup ever.
As for the stadia, well England has a wealth of great stadiums at the moment with the prospect of more to come. In addition to the 'Home of Football', other potential venues include:-
Old Trafford
Emirates Stadium
St James' Park
Stadium of Light
City of Manchester Stadium
Villa Park
Stamford Bridge
Elland Road
planned stadiums at Liverpool, Everton, West Ham and Nottingham.
If successful, it would end a 52 year wait for the World Cup to return to Wembley.
If I were you, I’d start saving your money … now.
Well that’s the hope of many an England supporter and the English FA as they confirm that England will bid to host the 2018 World Cup.
Following FIFA’s announcement on Monday that the previous rotation policy will be discontinued, and the positive comments made by FIFA President Sepp Blatter, FA Chairman Geoff Thompson said: “I’m delighted to announce our intention to bid to host the World Cup in 2018.
“The tremendous support from Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his government has also been a key consideration in today’s decision.
“I’m delighted The FA Board have been so positive in their support for a bid. It would be tremendous for English football and the whole country if we are successful.”
FA Chief Executive Brian Barwick said: “It is very clear that the English football public wants to see the World Cup back in this country”, highlighting some of the key points for England’s bid:-
Maximising support for England internationally
Financing the bid and financial planning for the tournament
Forming a bid team and who will lead it
Identifying the stadiums and training facilities to be used
Working with all stakeholders to ensure we have infrastructure in place to support the tournament – transport, hotels, communications etc.
Plans for supporters – domestic and international
The tournament’s legacy – for football and the whole country
Ensuring the tournament is inclusive to everyone
Making England the number one bid and to host the best World Cup ever.
As for the stadia, well England has a wealth of great stadiums at the moment with the prospect of more to come. In addition to the 'Home of Football', other potential venues include:-
Old Trafford
Emirates Stadium
St James' Park
Stadium of Light
City of Manchester Stadium
Villa Park
Stamford Bridge
Elland Road
planned stadiums at Liverpool, Everton, West Ham and Nottingham.
If successful, it would end a 52 year wait for the World Cup to return to Wembley.
If I were you, I’d start saving your money … now.
Wednesday, 24 October 2007
All the Presidential Men (Part 4)
The war intervenes
The 1934 World Cup was hosted in Italy, only the second to be held and the first to be staged in Europe. Uruguay had won the inaugural event four years earlier in their own country but with only four nations from Europe bothering to make the long trip, Uruguay reacted strongly by boycotting the competition in 1934.
It added a sour note to Jules Rimet's ongoing reign as President of FIFA but this was compounded when the Italian government used the event to maximise its political influence under the leadership of Mussolini. Even so, the second World Cup went ahead, albeit using a new format - knockout matches being played instead of first round pools.
Of the sixteen teams taking part, only four were from outside Europe. Brazil and Argentina were South America's only representatives but they returned home almost as soon as they'd arrived having been beaten in their respective first round games. A similar fate befell Egypt - the first team to represent Africa at the World Cup - as was the case with the United States who were well-beaten 7-1 by the hosts.
Italy proved to be strong contenders and with the advantage of a fervent and partisan home support behind them, they reached the Final which they won 2-1 against Czechoslovakia after extra time.
The competition was already attracting much interest around the world and it seemed the 1938 edition would return to South America again, but when Jules Rimet's home country of France was awarded the hosting rights, the South Americans weren't happy. They felt the location of the host country would alternate between them and Europe.
When the third World Cup finally came around, only Brazil travelled the long journey once again, but they were joined by Cuba and the Dutch East Indies for another treacherous series of knockout games. This time, Brazil made it through to the semi-finals only to be beaten by defending champions Italy 2-1 while Cuba reached round two were they were thrashed 8-0 by Sweden.
The hosts, France, were unable to repeat the achievements of their two predecessors and were beaten by Italy in the second round as well. Italy were still the team to beat on the international stage and they became the first team to defend their title when they beat Hungary in the Final 4-2.
The 1938 World Cup was the last to be played before the outbreak of World War II and though the conflict was still a year away, ominous signs were in evidence. Spain was in the grip of a Civil War and Austria had qualified but then withdrew as they were swallowed up by Hitler's growing German empire.
While Europe was being ripped apart by the Second World War, Jules Rimet took evasive action to ensure FIFA's World Cup trophy didn't fall into the wrong hands. During Germany's occupation of France, Rimet hid the World Cup under his bed to keep it out of sight from the invading army. It did the trick - the war ended in 1945, the trophy remained safe and sound, and the following year FIFA acknowledged the part Rimet had played in ensuring a successful opening period of World Cup history by naming the trophy after him.
With 25 years of presidency under his belt, Rimet looked to restore the World Cup Finals back to their rightful place. Under his jurisdiction, the world's biggest football competition would be held once again in 1950, this time in Brazil. Before that, Stanley Rous, head of the Football Association, had realised that the absence of the British nations from the tournament had gone on too long and was now working against them. Rous decided, therefore, to restore links with FIFA by organising an exhibition match in Glasgow in 1947 between a Great Britain XI and a Europe XI. The aim was to promote a peaceful, unified Europe as well as to raise funds for FIFA who, thanks to the ravages of war, were now well and truly on their uppers.
The match, named by the press as 'The Match of the Century' was a great success and was watched by a crowd of 135,000.. Jules Rimet was understandably delighted to receive the resulting donation of £30,000, but to some more important was the fact that the next World Cup would now feature the home nations of Great Britain for the first time.
And so to Brazil, 1950. The war-ravaged nations of Europe were reluctant to host a sporting competition in the light of recent events and having missed out on the 1938, this was seen as the ideal opportunity to allow another South American country to host the Finals.
Sadly, Rimet would again have to oversee numerous withdrawals before the tournament even began. Scotland qualified as runners-up to England in the Home International Championships but dropped out because they weren't British champions. India withdrew because FIFA wouldn't allow them to play in bare feet and France opted not to fly to Brazil as their first round matches were due to take place in venues 2,000 miles apart.
In the end, thirteen teams took part in four pools, though the fourth consisted only of Uruguay and Bolivia. The former beat the latter 8-0 and subsequently went through to the final pool stage. Hosts Brazil easily qualified from their group while in Pool 2 England suffered a double humiliation when they lost 1-0 to the USA and failed to qualify for the last round. Even double World Champions Italy went out in the first round after failing to beat eventual pool winners Sweden.
Instead of semi-finals, the 1950 World Cup used a round-robin group format to decide which of the last four would win the trophy. Brazil were many people's favourites to win it, especially after a 7-1 demolition of Sweden and a 6-1 thumping of Spain, but they hadn't reckoned on the threat of previous winners Uruguay. In the final match of the group in front of a crowd of nearly 200,000 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil's early 1-0 lead was overturned as Uruguay won 2-1. Brazil's time was yet to come but for their near neighbours a golden era had reached its peak.
On June 21st 1954, Jules Rimet (now 80 years of age) announced his retirement. During his time at the head of FIFA, he'd seen its membership grow from 24 countries to 82 with a world championship put in place and growing in stature with every passing year. All that remained was for Rimet to watch the World Cup unfold in Switzerland before stepping down from his position.
The 1954 tournament was the first to be broadcast live on television and what people saw was a tactical masterclass on the part of West German team coach Sepp Herberger. By engineering an 8-3 defeat in the first round to hot favourites Hungary, Herberger considered the resulting route through to the Final to be an easier one, having finished second in the group.
His forecast turned out to be correct. While Hungary had to fend off the strong challenges of Brazil and Uruguay in the knockout stages, West Germany easily dealt with Yugoslavia and Austria before meeting the Hungarians for a second time in the Final.
While some people were expecting a repeat of the 8-3 result two weeks previously, the West Germans had other ideas. Despite going down 2-0 early on to goals by Ferenc Puskás and Zoltán Czibor, Herberger's team fought back with two goals of their own from Max Morlock and Helmut Rahn. The game remained close for a further hour until six minutes from time Rahn scored his second to win the game for West Germany.
It was a thrilling final and a fitting end to Jules Rimet's period as President of FIFA. As he handed the trophy that bore his name over to West German captain Fritz Walter, there was a tangible sense of one era ending and another just beginning. Rimet's successor would certainly have a tough act to follow with many ambitions still yet to be fulfilled.
The 1934 World Cup was hosted in Italy, only the second to be held and the first to be staged in Europe. Uruguay had won the inaugural event four years earlier in their own country but with only four nations from Europe bothering to make the long trip, Uruguay reacted strongly by boycotting the competition in 1934.
It added a sour note to Jules Rimet's ongoing reign as President of FIFA but this was compounded when the Italian government used the event to maximise its political influence under the leadership of Mussolini. Even so, the second World Cup went ahead, albeit using a new format - knockout matches being played instead of first round pools.
Of the sixteen teams taking part, only four were from outside Europe. Brazil and Argentina were South America's only representatives but they returned home almost as soon as they'd arrived having been beaten in their respective first round games. A similar fate befell Egypt - the first team to represent Africa at the World Cup - as was the case with the United States who were well-beaten 7-1 by the hosts.
Italy proved to be strong contenders and with the advantage of a fervent and partisan home support behind them, they reached the Final which they won 2-1 against Czechoslovakia after extra time.
The competition was already attracting much interest around the world and it seemed the 1938 edition would return to South America again, but when Jules Rimet's home country of France was awarded the hosting rights, the South Americans weren't happy. They felt the location of the host country would alternate between them and Europe.
When the third World Cup finally came around, only Brazil travelled the long journey once again, but they were joined by Cuba and the Dutch East Indies for another treacherous series of knockout games. This time, Brazil made it through to the semi-finals only to be beaten by defending champions Italy 2-1 while Cuba reached round two were they were thrashed 8-0 by Sweden.
The hosts, France, were unable to repeat the achievements of their two predecessors and were beaten by Italy in the second round as well. Italy were still the team to beat on the international stage and they became the first team to defend their title when they beat Hungary in the Final 4-2.
The 1938 World Cup was the last to be played before the outbreak of World War II and though the conflict was still a year away, ominous signs were in evidence. Spain was in the grip of a Civil War and Austria had qualified but then withdrew as they were swallowed up by Hitler's growing German empire.
While Europe was being ripped apart by the Second World War, Jules Rimet took evasive action to ensure FIFA's World Cup trophy didn't fall into the wrong hands. During Germany's occupation of France, Rimet hid the World Cup under his bed to keep it out of sight from the invading army. It did the trick - the war ended in 1945, the trophy remained safe and sound, and the following year FIFA acknowledged the part Rimet had played in ensuring a successful opening period of World Cup history by naming the trophy after him.
With 25 years of presidency under his belt, Rimet looked to restore the World Cup Finals back to their rightful place. Under his jurisdiction, the world's biggest football competition would be held once again in 1950, this time in Brazil. Before that, Stanley Rous, head of the Football Association, had realised that the absence of the British nations from the tournament had gone on too long and was now working against them. Rous decided, therefore, to restore links with FIFA by organising an exhibition match in Glasgow in 1947 between a Great Britain XI and a Europe XI. The aim was to promote a peaceful, unified Europe as well as to raise funds for FIFA who, thanks to the ravages of war, were now well and truly on their uppers.
The match, named by the press as 'The Match of the Century' was a great success and was watched by a crowd of 135,000.. Jules Rimet was understandably delighted to receive the resulting donation of £30,000, but to some more important was the fact that the next World Cup would now feature the home nations of Great Britain for the first time.
And so to Brazil, 1950. The war-ravaged nations of Europe were reluctant to host a sporting competition in the light of recent events and having missed out on the 1938, this was seen as the ideal opportunity to allow another South American country to host the Finals.
Sadly, Rimet would again have to oversee numerous withdrawals before the tournament even began. Scotland qualified as runners-up to England in the Home International Championships but dropped out because they weren't British champions. India withdrew because FIFA wouldn't allow them to play in bare feet and France opted not to fly to Brazil as their first round matches were due to take place in venues 2,000 miles apart.
In the end, thirteen teams took part in four pools, though the fourth consisted only of Uruguay and Bolivia. The former beat the latter 8-0 and subsequently went through to the final pool stage. Hosts Brazil easily qualified from their group while in Pool 2 England suffered a double humiliation when they lost 1-0 to the USA and failed to qualify for the last round. Even double World Champions Italy went out in the first round after failing to beat eventual pool winners Sweden.
Instead of semi-finals, the 1950 World Cup used a round-robin group format to decide which of the last four would win the trophy. Brazil were many people's favourites to win it, especially after a 7-1 demolition of Sweden and a 6-1 thumping of Spain, but they hadn't reckoned on the threat of previous winners Uruguay. In the final match of the group in front of a crowd of nearly 200,000 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil's early 1-0 lead was overturned as Uruguay won 2-1. Brazil's time was yet to come but for their near neighbours a golden era had reached its peak.
On June 21st 1954, Jules Rimet (now 80 years of age) announced his retirement. During his time at the head of FIFA, he'd seen its membership grow from 24 countries to 82 with a world championship put in place and growing in stature with every passing year. All that remained was for Rimet to watch the World Cup unfold in Switzerland before stepping down from his position.
The 1954 tournament was the first to be broadcast live on television and what people saw was a tactical masterclass on the part of West German team coach Sepp Herberger. By engineering an 8-3 defeat in the first round to hot favourites Hungary, Herberger considered the resulting route through to the Final to be an easier one, having finished second in the group.
His forecast turned out to be correct. While Hungary had to fend off the strong challenges of Brazil and Uruguay in the knockout stages, West Germany easily dealt with Yugoslavia and Austria before meeting the Hungarians for a second time in the Final.
While some people were expecting a repeat of the 8-3 result two weeks previously, the West Germans had other ideas. Despite going down 2-0 early on to goals by Ferenc Puskás and Zoltán Czibor, Herberger's team fought back with two goals of their own from Max Morlock and Helmut Rahn. The game remained close for a further hour until six minutes from time Rahn scored his second to win the game for West Germany.
It was a thrilling final and a fitting end to Jules Rimet's period as President of FIFA. As he handed the trophy that bore his name over to West German captain Fritz Walter, there was a tangible sense of one era ending and another just beginning. Rimet's successor would certainly have a tough act to follow with many ambitions still yet to be fulfilled.
Sunday, 23 September 2007
All the Presidential Men (Part 3)
The man behind the trophy
March 1st 1921 was a momentous day for FIFA, although few would have known it at the time. This was the day that Jules Rimet officially succeeded the late Daniel Burley Woolfall to become the world governing body's third president since its creation in 1904. Under his guidance, FIFA entered its first great period of real change, but achieving success wouldn't be easy. Rimet would have to work hard and enthuse a sense of belief in all its member nations throughout his 33-year tenure.
Jules Rimet was a familiar face in football administration circles. He was president of France's Ligue de Football Association and had attended FIFA's Congress prior to his appointment at the age of 48. When Woolfall died, Carl Hirschman took temporary charge to see the governing body through the closing years of World War I, but a meeting of the FIFA board in Antwerp in 1920 confirmed Rimet as the man who would take over on a permanent basis.
Rimet's first main concern was to oversee the 1924 Olympic football tournament in Paris. Twenty-four teams entered and though the British nations were absent, many others from far and wide did take part. The undoubted focus of everyone's attention was Uruguay who, fresh from a successful tour of Spain, entered the contest as sole representatives of South America, brimming with confidence and talent.
Their short-passing play and superior positional awareness saw them cruise through to the Final where they beat Switzerland 3-0. They won the gold medal, and four years later in Amsterdam they did it again, beating near neighbours Argentina in the Final.
By this time, FIFA were not entirely happy about the nature of the Olympic tournament which was considered by many to be an unofficial world championship. The IOC insisted that all competing countries should respect its amateur ideals, but FIFA knew that more and more players were now turning professional and receiving payments accordingly. There was only one way to truly reflect the current state of the world game in a major tournament, and that was to allow both amateurs and professionals to take part.
It was therefore decided that 1930 would see the first FIFA World Championship take place, and having gained such dominance at the Olympic Games and in the South American championships, it seemed only fair to make Uruguay the host country. At a stroke, FIFA immediately, if a little indirectly, encouraged more teams from outside Europe to take a greater involvement in the game.
It worked. Teams such as Bolivia, Argentina, Brazil, the United States and Mexico were quick to sign up to the tournament, yet FIFA's incentive had the opposite effect on the growing number of European nations that wanted to take part. Air travel was still primitive and expensive and after the damaging effect of World War I, few countries could afford to send their teams on long journeys anyway.
The Uruguayan FA waited patiently for a response to its invitations, but nothing was heard from across the Atlantic. Even the English Football Association were asked to take part and they weren’t even members of FIFA at the time. Things were getting desperate, so Jules Rimet decided to take matters into his own hands.
He wasted no time in approaching numerous football associations around Europe, persuading them as best he could that they should compete in the inaugural world championship. With the added incentive of having all their travel fares paid for by the Uruguayan FA, he achieved some success. Four countries were eventually won over - France, Yugoslavia, Romania and Belgium, ensuring a total of thirteen teams would take part at the start of the contest.
And so it was that the first World Cup finally got underway on July 13th 1930. Financially it was a great success and the South American fans were rewarded with many great games and admirable results.
When the tournament ended just over two weeks later, Uruguay found themselves once again facing their recent rivals from the 1928 Olympics, Argentina. Though the margin of victory was smaller, the result remained the same - Uruguay were the winners, beating the Argentineans 4-2.
For FIFA and Rimet in particular, a great sense of achievement was felt. The momentum to organise the next tournament four years later in Italy was there, but the Uruguayans were not happy. The fact that only four teams from Europe had made the effort to travel to their country was not one they were satisfied with. Their response was to withdraw from the 1934 World Cup leaving Rimet in no doubt that the job of FIFA President was not going to be an easy one to undertake...
March 1st 1921 was a momentous day for FIFA, although few would have known it at the time. This was the day that Jules Rimet officially succeeded the late Daniel Burley Woolfall to become the world governing body's third president since its creation in 1904. Under his guidance, FIFA entered its first great period of real change, but achieving success wouldn't be easy. Rimet would have to work hard and enthuse a sense of belief in all its member nations throughout his 33-year tenure.
Jules Rimet was a familiar face in football administration circles. He was president of France's Ligue de Football Association and had attended FIFA's Congress prior to his appointment at the age of 48. When Woolfall died, Carl Hirschman took temporary charge to see the governing body through the closing years of World War I, but a meeting of the FIFA board in Antwerp in 1920 confirmed Rimet as the man who would take over on a permanent basis.
Rimet's first main concern was to oversee the 1924 Olympic football tournament in Paris. Twenty-four teams entered and though the British nations were absent, many others from far and wide did take part. The undoubted focus of everyone's attention was Uruguay who, fresh from a successful tour of Spain, entered the contest as sole representatives of South America, brimming with confidence and talent.
Their short-passing play and superior positional awareness saw them cruise through to the Final where they beat Switzerland 3-0. They won the gold medal, and four years later in Amsterdam they did it again, beating near neighbours Argentina in the Final.
By this time, FIFA were not entirely happy about the nature of the Olympic tournament which was considered by many to be an unofficial world championship. The IOC insisted that all competing countries should respect its amateur ideals, but FIFA knew that more and more players were now turning professional and receiving payments accordingly. There was only one way to truly reflect the current state of the world game in a major tournament, and that was to allow both amateurs and professionals to take part.
It was therefore decided that 1930 would see the first FIFA World Championship take place, and having gained such dominance at the Olympic Games and in the South American championships, it seemed only fair to make Uruguay the host country. At a stroke, FIFA immediately, if a little indirectly, encouraged more teams from outside Europe to take a greater involvement in the game.
It worked. Teams such as Bolivia, Argentina, Brazil, the United States and Mexico were quick to sign up to the tournament, yet FIFA's incentive had the opposite effect on the growing number of European nations that wanted to take part. Air travel was still primitive and expensive and after the damaging effect of World War I, few countries could afford to send their teams on long journeys anyway.
The Uruguayan FA waited patiently for a response to its invitations, but nothing was heard from across the Atlantic. Even the English Football Association were asked to take part and they weren’t even members of FIFA at the time. Things were getting desperate, so Jules Rimet decided to take matters into his own hands.
He wasted no time in approaching numerous football associations around Europe, persuading them as best he could that they should compete in the inaugural world championship. With the added incentive of having all their travel fares paid for by the Uruguayan FA, he achieved some success. Four countries were eventually won over - France, Yugoslavia, Romania and Belgium, ensuring a total of thirteen teams would take part at the start of the contest.
And so it was that the first World Cup finally got underway on July 13th 1930. Financially it was a great success and the South American fans were rewarded with many great games and admirable results.
When the tournament ended just over two weeks later, Uruguay found themselves once again facing their recent rivals from the 1928 Olympics, Argentina. Though the margin of victory was smaller, the result remained the same - Uruguay were the winners, beating the Argentineans 4-2.
For FIFA and Rimet in particular, a great sense of achievement was felt. The momentum to organise the next tournament four years later in Italy was there, but the Uruguayans were not happy. The fact that only four teams from Europe had made the effort to travel to their country was not one they were satisfied with. Their response was to withdraw from the 1934 World Cup leaving Rimet in no doubt that the job of FIFA President was not going to be an easy one to undertake...
Tuesday, 21 August 2007
All the Presidential Men (Part 2)
Continuing our look at the Presidents of FIFA from 1904 to the present day.
Part 2: An Englishman in charge
Under the leadership of Frenchman Robert Guerin, FIFA began life in 1904 as the world governing body of Football. Its raison d'être was to ensure that the game be played in a uniform way around the world in accordance with the standards it laid down.
Key to making this happen was getting as many football associations around the world affiliated to FIFA as possible, and this was something that Guerin had enjoyed some success with during his time as President. When Guerin was replaced by Englishman Daniel Burley Woolfall in 1906, however, FIFA still only consisted of European member nations. To develop the game of football around the world, Woolfall would need to persuade other continents to sign up, and top of the list were North America and South America.
Aside from the ensuing recruitment campaign which he initiated, Woolfall also had other pressing matters to deal with, namely the confirmation of a fixed set of rules under which football would be played around the world. His background, working on the Administration Board for the English Football Association, stood him in good stead and so it came as no surprise when the Laws of the Game were put in place during the early years of his tenure.
In 1908, Woolfall assumed responsibility for organising the football tournament of the 4th Olympic Games in London. FIFA's aim of creating a world championship was slow to materialise and in the first two decades of the 20th Century the Olympics were the only place where international competition could be seen. That said, only five countries took part in 1908, all of them from Europe, but this was not its main point of notoriety.
In direct contrast to FIFA's own principles, Woolfall gave the go-ahead for professional players to enter the Olympic tournament which, for the greater part of its history, has been the bastion of amateur competitors only. Given the development of football around the world at the time, few would have raised an eyebrow when Great Britain won the gold medal after a 2-0 win over Denmark in the Final.
FIFA were to benefit from the leadership of Daniel Burley Woolfall for twelve long years and during that time its membership doubled. Football at last started to embrace more distant backwaters as countries such as South Africa, Argentina, Chile and the United States enlisted. At last progress was seen to be made, but tragedy loomed around the corner.
In 1914, the First World War began and although some international football matches still took place in neutral territories, the sport was naturally overshadowed by the conflict going on all around. Many players were sent away to take part in battle and FIFA's Congress struggled to convene as members found it almost impossible to travel from country to country.
FIFA's dream of uniting all nations lay in tatters and in 1918 it also found itself without a President. Daniel Burley Woolfall, the man from Blackburn who had built such a strong foundation for the sport around the world, died aged 66. Uncertain times lay ahead and when the First World War ended, FIFA looked towards a new President who could carry on the good work carried out by Woolfall. Little did they know his replacement would go on to be a legend in the sport for many decades to come...
Part 2: An Englishman in charge
Under the leadership of Frenchman Robert Guerin, FIFA began life in 1904 as the world governing body of Football. Its raison d'être was to ensure that the game be played in a uniform way around the world in accordance with the standards it laid down.
Key to making this happen was getting as many football associations around the world affiliated to FIFA as possible, and this was something that Guerin had enjoyed some success with during his time as President. When Guerin was replaced by Englishman Daniel Burley Woolfall in 1906, however, FIFA still only consisted of European member nations. To develop the game of football around the world, Woolfall would need to persuade other continents to sign up, and top of the list were North America and South America.
Aside from the ensuing recruitment campaign which he initiated, Woolfall also had other pressing matters to deal with, namely the confirmation of a fixed set of rules under which football would be played around the world. His background, working on the Administration Board for the English Football Association, stood him in good stead and so it came as no surprise when the Laws of the Game were put in place during the early years of his tenure.
In 1908, Woolfall assumed responsibility for organising the football tournament of the 4th Olympic Games in London. FIFA's aim of creating a world championship was slow to materialise and in the first two decades of the 20th Century the Olympics were the only place where international competition could be seen. That said, only five countries took part in 1908, all of them from Europe, but this was not its main point of notoriety.
In direct contrast to FIFA's own principles, Woolfall gave the go-ahead for professional players to enter the Olympic tournament which, for the greater part of its history, has been the bastion of amateur competitors only. Given the development of football around the world at the time, few would have raised an eyebrow when Great Britain won the gold medal after a 2-0 win over Denmark in the Final.
FIFA were to benefit from the leadership of Daniel Burley Woolfall for twelve long years and during that time its membership doubled. Football at last started to embrace more distant backwaters as countries such as South Africa, Argentina, Chile and the United States enlisted. At last progress was seen to be made, but tragedy loomed around the corner.
In 1914, the First World War began and although some international football matches still took place in neutral territories, the sport was naturally overshadowed by the conflict going on all around. Many players were sent away to take part in battle and FIFA's Congress struggled to convene as members found it almost impossible to travel from country to country.
FIFA's dream of uniting all nations lay in tatters and in 1918 it also found itself without a President. Daniel Burley Woolfall, the man from Blackburn who had built such a strong foundation for the sport around the world, died aged 66. Uncertain times lay ahead and when the First World War ended, FIFA looked towards a new President who could carry on the good work carried out by Woolfall. Little did they know his replacement would go on to be a legend in the sport for many decades to come...
Thursday, 9 August 2007
All The Presidential Men (Part 1)
This new series looks at the people who, over the past 103 years, have sat at the top of the tree in the world governing body of Football. This is the story of FIFA's Presidents from 1904 to the present day.
Part 1: In the beginning
Ever since the sport of Football began in earnest back in 1862 with the creation of the English Football Association, international competition was always uppermost in the minds of those countries that played the game.
In 1900, a Football competition was held in the Paris Olympic Games and by the 1920's it had come to be looked upon as a world championship of sorts. Yet back in 1904, a group of visionaries decided that an official world championship needed to be organised by the federations that managed the sport in each competing country, rather than the IOC.
So it was that Robert Guerin, a Frenchman who wrote for the newspaper 'Le Matin' and a secretary involved with the administration of French football invited senior figures from France, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden to create FIFA - the federation of international football federations.
Guerin himself was elected President of the seven-nation governing body and one of his first tasks was to expand FIFA's membership to include the so-far absent football-playing countries around the world - particularly those from Great Britain where the laws of the game had first been laid down.
Within a year, England had joined along with Austria, Germany, Hungary and Italy. Scotland, Wales and Ireland followed soon after and with talk of an international competition due to take place in 1906, it seemed everything in the FIFA garden was looking pleasantly rosy.
Reality suggested it was anything but. The competition in Switzerland was a failure, the French governing body was divided and some of FIFA's member countries were doubtful about their role in the administration of the sport.
The enthusiasm with which Guerin gave FIFA such a great start was now starting to disappear as problems accumulated. Guerin opted to lessen his involvement with Football and as a result his administrative duties were handed over more and more often to Vice-President Victor Schneider.
The time had therefore come to find a new President, and with Schneider taking temporary charge, FIFA looked to its pater familias, England, for Guerin's successor. Enter Daniel Burley Woolfall to take up the baton…
Part 1: In the beginning
Ever since the sport of Football began in earnest back in 1862 with the creation of the English Football Association, international competition was always uppermost in the minds of those countries that played the game.
In 1900, a Football competition was held in the Paris Olympic Games and by the 1920's it had come to be looked upon as a world championship of sorts. Yet back in 1904, a group of visionaries decided that an official world championship needed to be organised by the federations that managed the sport in each competing country, rather than the IOC.
So it was that Robert Guerin, a Frenchman who wrote for the newspaper 'Le Matin' and a secretary involved with the administration of French football invited senior figures from France, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden to create FIFA - the federation of international football federations.Guerin himself was elected President of the seven-nation governing body and one of his first tasks was to expand FIFA's membership to include the so-far absent football-playing countries around the world - particularly those from Great Britain where the laws of the game had first been laid down.
Within a year, England had joined along with Austria, Germany, Hungary and Italy. Scotland, Wales and Ireland followed soon after and with talk of an international competition due to take place in 1906, it seemed everything in the FIFA garden was looking pleasantly rosy.
Reality suggested it was anything but. The competition in Switzerland was a failure, the French governing body was divided and some of FIFA's member countries were doubtful about their role in the administration of the sport.
The enthusiasm with which Guerin gave FIFA such a great start was now starting to disappear as problems accumulated. Guerin opted to lessen his involvement with Football and as a result his administrative duties were handed over more and more often to Vice-President Victor Schneider.
The time had therefore come to find a new President, and with Schneider taking temporary charge, FIFA looked to its pater familias, England, for Guerin's successor. Enter Daniel Burley Woolfall to take up the baton…
Tuesday, 17 April 2007
News Catch-up
A selection of recent news stories from the world of football that we'd love to have talked about earlier but frankly didn't have the time...
Neil Desperandum
How very sad. How incredibly ignorant and pathetic.
That was my reaction to the utterances of Sheffield United manager Neil Warnock last Friday as he was interviewed on the eve of their match against West Ham. Warnock was aggrieved by the fact that West Ham were likely to avoid relegation due to a goal scored by Hayden Mullins against the Blades in their previous encounter which should not have been given and another scored recently by Bobby Zamora against Blackburn where the ball never actually crossed the line.
Such things happen in football as we all know, but because Warnock's side are now slipping dangerously close to the relegation zone that West Ham may now scramble out of, he feels West Ham don't deserve to stay up. By his reckoning, West Ham have played poorly all season as reflected in the poor number of points they've accrued (which no-one can deny), but what an insult it would be if they avoided the drop on the back of those two 'non-goals'?
He even went on to say that “everyone else will be very bitter” if the Hammers were to stay in the Premiership (by a single point) too.
Well here's a reminder for Mr. Warnock: the Premiership is played over an entire season, and if at the end of that season West Ham somehow manage to gain just enough points to stay up while Sheffield United endure months without a win, he'll have no-one to blame but his miserable old self.
It's hard to be spiteful about an individual - especially one who this season has been less irascible and outspoken than in the past - but on the basis of his comments last week it has to be said that this emotionless man deserves to be banished back to the lower leagues he languished in for so long.
Chelsea v Man U x 3
So we appear to be heading for a triple showdown between Chelsea and Manchester United, but what are we to make of it all?
If the great fixture organiser in the sky has his way, we could be seeing a European Champions League Final, an FA Cup Final and a Premiership decider all featuring the top two teams in England. Such a mouthwatering prospect... or is it?
On paper, it could be a chance to see two teams that both think they're the best thing since sliced bread battling it out in a goal-packed and somewhat fractious series of games, but do we need to see the same thing played out in triplicate?
Yes, they're both great teams that at times play to a breathtakingly high standard, but the big games are an ideal opportunity to showcase the variety and talent of as many teams as possible and to that end it's a pity we may be denied the chance to see it.
And I know what you're going to say - it's not the fault of Chelsea or Man United that they've been successful enough to get where they are - but it's got to be a fear amongst many that follow the game that this may be the start of a trend that leads to only the biggest teams battling it out for glory.
In the meantime, let's keep our fingers crossed that we at least get to see one game between the two that shows the quality they have as a sign of the best that the Premiership has to offer.
Brazil to host the 2014 World Cup... maybe...
On the eve of UEFA's announcement on who's to host the 2012 European Championships, FIFA has given notification that Colombia have now dropped out of the race to host the 2014 World Cup. This leaves Brazil as the only contenders under FIFA's continental rotation policy that dictates that the World Cup after next should be held in South America.
But before you pack your yellow and green shirt and head off for your apartment overlooking Copacabana beach, be warned: things aren't as cut and dried as they look.
The problem is that Brazil lack the wherewithal to host the World Cup. Its stadia are in desperate need of an overhaul, its transport links are feeble and the money to improve both is practically non-existent. Even if the Brazilian government could somehow stump up the money to make such wide-ranging improvements, it would meet vehement opposition from the public who feel it would be better spent on education, crime and poverty.
And yet by taking on such a huge project, Brazil could make things better for themselves. The jobs created to improve the transport systems and build nearby hotels could invigorate the local and national economy. The notoriously low attendance figures for league football would undoubtedly be boosted and who knows - maybe tomorrow's young players would want to ply their trade in their home country rather than in Europe?
Deep down, I suspect many of us would love to see the World Cup return to Brazil for the first time since 1950. It represents the spiritual and emotional aspects of the competition and the game of football itself to millions all over the world, so it seems only right that Brazil should provide it with a temporary home in seven years time. Don't be surprised, though, if sheer practicality dictates that the World Cup doesn't on this occasion return to the birthplace of Jairzinho, Rivelino and Pélé.
Neil Desperandum
How very sad. How incredibly ignorant and pathetic.
That was my reaction to the utterances of Sheffield United manager Neil Warnock last Friday as he was interviewed on the eve of their match against West Ham. Warnock was aggrieved by the fact that West Ham were likely to avoid relegation due to a goal scored by Hayden Mullins against the Blades in their previous encounter which should not have been given and another scored recently by Bobby Zamora against Blackburn where the ball never actually crossed the line.
Such things happen in football as we all know, but because Warnock's side are now slipping dangerously close to the relegation zone that West Ham may now scramble out of, he feels West Ham don't deserve to stay up. By his reckoning, West Ham have played poorly all season as reflected in the poor number of points they've accrued (which no-one can deny), but what an insult it would be if they avoided the drop on the back of those two 'non-goals'?
He even went on to say that “everyone else will be very bitter” if the Hammers were to stay in the Premiership (by a single point) too.
Well here's a reminder for Mr. Warnock: the Premiership is played over an entire season, and if at the end of that season West Ham somehow manage to gain just enough points to stay up while Sheffield United endure months without a win, he'll have no-one to blame but his miserable old self.
It's hard to be spiteful about an individual - especially one who this season has been less irascible and outspoken than in the past - but on the basis of his comments last week it has to be said that this emotionless man deserves to be banished back to the lower leagues he languished in for so long.
Chelsea v Man U x 3
So we appear to be heading for a triple showdown between Chelsea and Manchester United, but what are we to make of it all?
If the great fixture organiser in the sky has his way, we could be seeing a European Champions League Final, an FA Cup Final and a Premiership decider all featuring the top two teams in England. Such a mouthwatering prospect... or is it?
On paper, it could be a chance to see two teams that both think they're the best thing since sliced bread battling it out in a goal-packed and somewhat fractious series of games, but do we need to see the same thing played out in triplicate?
Yes, they're both great teams that at times play to a breathtakingly high standard, but the big games are an ideal opportunity to showcase the variety and talent of as many teams as possible and to that end it's a pity we may be denied the chance to see it.
And I know what you're going to say - it's not the fault of Chelsea or Man United that they've been successful enough to get where they are - but it's got to be a fear amongst many that follow the game that this may be the start of a trend that leads to only the biggest teams battling it out for glory.
In the meantime, let's keep our fingers crossed that we at least get to see one game between the two that shows the quality they have as a sign of the best that the Premiership has to offer.
Brazil to host the 2014 World Cup... maybe...
On the eve of UEFA's announcement on who's to host the 2012 European Championships, FIFA has given notification that Colombia have now dropped out of the race to host the 2014 World Cup. This leaves Brazil as the only contenders under FIFA's continental rotation policy that dictates that the World Cup after next should be held in South America.
But before you pack your yellow and green shirt and head off for your apartment overlooking Copacabana beach, be warned: things aren't as cut and dried as they look.
The problem is that Brazil lack the wherewithal to host the World Cup. Its stadia are in desperate need of an overhaul, its transport links are feeble and the money to improve both is practically non-existent. Even if the Brazilian government could somehow stump up the money to make such wide-ranging improvements, it would meet vehement opposition from the public who feel it would be better spent on education, crime and poverty.
And yet by taking on such a huge project, Brazil could make things better for themselves. The jobs created to improve the transport systems and build nearby hotels could invigorate the local and national economy. The notoriously low attendance figures for league football would undoubtedly be boosted and who knows - maybe tomorrow's young players would want to ply their trade in their home country rather than in Europe?
Deep down, I suspect many of us would love to see the World Cup return to Brazil for the first time since 1950. It represents the spiritual and emotional aspects of the competition and the game of football itself to millions all over the world, so it seems only right that Brazil should provide it with a temporary home in seven years time. Don't be surprised, though, if sheer practicality dictates that the World Cup doesn't on this occasion return to the birthplace of Jairzinho, Rivelino and Pélé.
Thursday, 12 April 2007
The Host With The Most: Football Rules Australia
Football - or rather 'Soccer' as it is known - is on the up 'down under'. In a country where rugby, cricket and of course, Australian Rules Football are the national sports, soccer (as we'll call it from now on to avoid confusion) is at last becoming the big spectator sport it deserves to be.
Melbourne's Telstra Dome held this season's 'Grand Final' of the A-League, which saw Melbourne Victory face Adelaide United. An attendance of 55,436 saw Melbourne coast to victory - an attendance which was not only the highest of the season but also higher than any Aussie Rules match held in that stadium.
Attendances have been impressive throughout the season too, with crowds of over 40,000 being a regular occurrence. Even amongst the young, Soccer has found a new home with over 350,000 children taking part. That figure is second only to swimming, and Soccer among boys only has more participants (268,000) compared to Aussie Rules (188,000).
So what has gone so right for Soccer in Australia? Obviously the World Cup effect has a lot to do with it, as the 'Socceroos' performed well in Germany last summer. However, the club scene has changed drastically. Major cities now have one club to support, allowing them to call on the support of every fan in their region - Sydney FC, Melbourne Victory for example. Try to imagine that in England if you can - London City, Manchester Rovers, Liverpool Echo... or perhaps, Glasgow?
Consider also Australia's new qualification path to the World Cup Finals. They now play sides from Asia instead of the mismatches against the likes of Western Samoa en route to the inevitable final against New Zealand. Soccer suddenly has a competitive level never seen in Australia before - at both club and national level.
The A-league of Australia has followed a similar path to that of the J-League of Japan, hiring bigger name coaches and signing older but recognisable stars to their league. This trend will continue until Australia produces enough big names of its own or the A-League is attractive enough a proposition to tempt players away from Europe and South America.
Those days are a long way off, of course, but with rising attendances, TV coverage and sponsorship revenue, surely a production line of young and talented footballers is a realistic possibility in a similar way to their cricket academies?
FIFA like to give the 'Global Game' (as they promote it) even more coverage across the globe. The apparent failure in trying to convert the Americans into fans of the sport has had a lukewarm response at best. America had its own favourite sports such as Baseball and American Football, and in cricket, rugby and Aussie Rules it seems Australia had the same problem.
That may have been the case not too long ago, but is that the case anymore? As we know, they love a pis... party down under, and have the infrastructure and experience (thanks to the Olympics, Rugby World Cup and Ashes series) to handle such a major event. Surely, then, Australia is ripe for picking as a World Cup host very soon?
Melbourne's Telstra Dome held this season's 'Grand Final' of the A-League, which saw Melbourne Victory face Adelaide United. An attendance of 55,436 saw Melbourne coast to victory - an attendance which was not only the highest of the season but also higher than any Aussie Rules match held in that stadium.
Attendances have been impressive throughout the season too, with crowds of over 40,000 being a regular occurrence. Even amongst the young, Soccer has found a new home with over 350,000 children taking part. That figure is second only to swimming, and Soccer among boys only has more participants (268,000) compared to Aussie Rules (188,000).
So what has gone so right for Soccer in Australia? Obviously the World Cup effect has a lot to do with it, as the 'Socceroos' performed well in Germany last summer. However, the club scene has changed drastically. Major cities now have one club to support, allowing them to call on the support of every fan in their region - Sydney FC, Melbourne Victory for example. Try to imagine that in England if you can - London City, Manchester Rovers, Liverpool Echo... or perhaps, Glasgow?
Consider also Australia's new qualification path to the World Cup Finals. They now play sides from Asia instead of the mismatches against the likes of Western Samoa en route to the inevitable final against New Zealand. Soccer suddenly has a competitive level never seen in Australia before - at both club and national level.
The A-league of Australia has followed a similar path to that of the J-League of Japan, hiring bigger name coaches and signing older but recognisable stars to their league. This trend will continue until Australia produces enough big names of its own or the A-League is attractive enough a proposition to tempt players away from Europe and South America.
Those days are a long way off, of course, but with rising attendances, TV coverage and sponsorship revenue, surely a production line of young and talented footballers is a realistic possibility in a similar way to their cricket academies?
FIFA like to give the 'Global Game' (as they promote it) even more coverage across the globe. The apparent failure in trying to convert the Americans into fans of the sport has had a lukewarm response at best. America had its own favourite sports such as Baseball and American Football, and in cricket, rugby and Aussie Rules it seems Australia had the same problem.
That may have been the case not too long ago, but is that the case anymore? As we know, they love a pis... party down under, and have the infrastructure and experience (thanks to the Olympics, Rugby World Cup and Ashes series) to handle such a major event. Surely, then, Australia is ripe for picking as a World Cup host very soon?
Sunday, 25 February 2007
The India Equation
In March 2007, FIFA will begin a new pilot scheme which, it's hoped, will reinvent the game of football in a country that perpetually underperforms on the world stage - India.
India have never reached the World Cup Finals - in fact the only footballing success they've enjoyed came with a fourth place finish in the 1956 Olympics and a gold medal in the 1962 Asian Games. It's now over forty years since India did anything of note in footballing terms, and for a country with a population of around 1.1 billion, it seems staggering that they haven't achieved more before now.
All of which got us thinking... how many other countries are there around the world that are failing to find success in relation to their population? We decided to look into the matter...
First we needed some sort of equation - a mathematical way of correlating who had achieved what and who was concealing the biggest set of inhabitants within their borders. It seemed all very easy at the outset, but once we ended up hip-deep in statistics, we soon found it was anything but.
So let's start off with 'achievement'. Quite honestly, if you haven't played in the World Cup Finals, you're not going to score very highly. Yes it's all very well to say you've reached the Finals of your own continental tournament, i.e. the European Championships, Copa America, and so on, but it pails into insignificance compared to the World Cup. Case in point: Greece won Euro 2004, yet failed to qualify for World Cup 2006. Need we say more?
In our equation, each country scores a point for every round reached in a World Cup Finals tournament, with an extra point awarded to the outright winners. For every World Cup that a country failed to reach after they affiliated to FIFA, we've knocked off a point. To round things off, we then gave each country a rank based on the number of points scored (so Brazil got 1, Germany 2, etc.) and that sorted out the 'achievement' side of the equation.
So onto the 'population' bit. Quite straight forward - we divided a country's population by a million, knocked off the stuff after the decimal point, then ranked it. Having got the rank, we then divided it by 10. (Example: China has the biggest population of all the 206 countries, so 206 became its rank. 206 divided by 10 is 20.6 so China's population rating is therefore 20.6.)
Add the achievement rating to the population rating and there's your final score for each country. So according to our figures, who are the biggest under-achievers in world football? Yes, you've guessed it - India. They scored 94.5 on our system, 0.4 ahead of near neighbours Pakistan in second. In third place were Bangladesh (who have a population greater than that of Russia), and just behind them on 93.5 points were the Philippines.
The highest-placed African country were Ethiopia in sixth place on 93.1 points and Europe's biggest under-achievers were Kazakhstan in 23rd place on 88.7 points.
At the other end of the table are Uruguay who, with a population of just under 3.5 million, have won the World Cup twice. In a system where lower points means a higher rating, Uruguay did exceptionally well to score just 17.2 points. Second best were Sweden with 19.2 points, then in third were Brazil - population: 188 million - followed by (West) Germany in fourth and Italy in fifth.
England came in seventh with a score of 23.2 ahead of France in tenth, but Scotland did well to come in 18th on 32.4 points. Ireland were two places behind in 20th while the United States showed how a heavily populated country can be successful by finishing 23rd.
So what can we derive from our final list? Well we can gather a greater sense of admiration for those countries who have achieved much despite having a small population from which to make team. The likes of Belgium, Hungary, Switzerland and Austria may not hit the headlines very much these days, but they deserve our respect for what they've done up to now.
Conversely one can look to the opposite end of the list and see which countries should be doing better. What we see are mainly Asian and African countries that we can only assume have a wealth of talent waiting to be discovered and honed into a force to be reckoned with. Until then though, the world awaits a World Cup Finals that introduce the likes of Thailand or Sudan, and thanks to FIFA's new scheme, it might happen sooner rather than later.
BOTTOM 10
-------------------
197th Tanzania
198th Sudan
199th Myanmar
200th Thailand
201st Ethiopia
202nd Vietnam
203rd Philippines
204th Bangladesh
205th Pakistan
206th India
TOP 10 AND OTHER NOTABLES
-------------------------------------------------
1st Uruguay
2nd Sweden
3rd Brazil
4th (West) Germany
5th Italy
6th Argentina
7th England
8th Belgium
9th Hungary
=10th France / Spain
14th Netherlands
15th Mexico
18th Scotland
20th Republic of Ireland
23rd USA
25th Portugal
27th Northern Ireland
43rd Australia
45th Wales
59th China
64th Greece
71st Canada
Download:
You can download a PDF version of the list by clicking here.
India have never reached the World Cup Finals - in fact the only footballing success they've enjoyed came with a fourth place finish in the 1956 Olympics and a gold medal in the 1962 Asian Games. It's now over forty years since India did anything of note in footballing terms, and for a country with a population of around 1.1 billion, it seems staggering that they haven't achieved more before now.
All of which got us thinking... how many other countries are there around the world that are failing to find success in relation to their population? We decided to look into the matter...
First we needed some sort of equation - a mathematical way of correlating who had achieved what and who was concealing the biggest set of inhabitants within their borders. It seemed all very easy at the outset, but once we ended up hip-deep in statistics, we soon found it was anything but.
So let's start off with 'achievement'. Quite honestly, if you haven't played in the World Cup Finals, you're not going to score very highly. Yes it's all very well to say you've reached the Finals of your own continental tournament, i.e. the European Championships, Copa America, and so on, but it pails into insignificance compared to the World Cup. Case in point: Greece won Euro 2004, yet failed to qualify for World Cup 2006. Need we say more?
In our equation, each country scores a point for every round reached in a World Cup Finals tournament, with an extra point awarded to the outright winners. For every World Cup that a country failed to reach after they affiliated to FIFA, we've knocked off a point. To round things off, we then gave each country a rank based on the number of points scored (so Brazil got 1, Germany 2, etc.) and that sorted out the 'achievement' side of the equation.
So onto the 'population' bit. Quite straight forward - we divided a country's population by a million, knocked off the stuff after the decimal point, then ranked it. Having got the rank, we then divided it by 10. (Example: China has the biggest population of all the 206 countries, so 206 became its rank. 206 divided by 10 is 20.6 so China's population rating is therefore 20.6.)
Add the achievement rating to the population rating and there's your final score for each country. So according to our figures, who are the biggest under-achievers in world football? Yes, you've guessed it - India. They scored 94.5 on our system, 0.4 ahead of near neighbours Pakistan in second. In third place were Bangladesh (who have a population greater than that of Russia), and just behind them on 93.5 points were the Philippines.
The highest-placed African country were Ethiopia in sixth place on 93.1 points and Europe's biggest under-achievers were Kazakhstan in 23rd place on 88.7 points.
At the other end of the table are Uruguay who, with a population of just under 3.5 million, have won the World Cup twice. In a system where lower points means a higher rating, Uruguay did exceptionally well to score just 17.2 points. Second best were Sweden with 19.2 points, then in third were Brazil - population: 188 million - followed by (West) Germany in fourth and Italy in fifth.
England came in seventh with a score of 23.2 ahead of France in tenth, but Scotland did well to come in 18th on 32.4 points. Ireland were two places behind in 20th while the United States showed how a heavily populated country can be successful by finishing 23rd.
So what can we derive from our final list? Well we can gather a greater sense of admiration for those countries who have achieved much despite having a small population from which to make team. The likes of Belgium, Hungary, Switzerland and Austria may not hit the headlines very much these days, but they deserve our respect for what they've done up to now.
Conversely one can look to the opposite end of the list and see which countries should be doing better. What we see are mainly Asian and African countries that we can only assume have a wealth of talent waiting to be discovered and honed into a force to be reckoned with. Until then though, the world awaits a World Cup Finals that introduce the likes of Thailand or Sudan, and thanks to FIFA's new scheme, it might happen sooner rather than later.
BOTTOM 10
-------------------
197th Tanzania
198th Sudan
199th Myanmar
200th Thailand
201st Ethiopia
202nd Vietnam
203rd Philippines
204th Bangladesh
205th Pakistan
206th India
TOP 10 AND OTHER NOTABLES
-------------------------------------------------
1st Uruguay
2nd Sweden
3rd Brazil
4th (West) Germany
5th Italy
6th Argentina
7th England
8th Belgium
9th Hungary
=10th France / Spain
14th Netherlands
15th Mexico
18th Scotland
20th Republic of Ireland
23rd USA
25th Portugal
27th Northern Ireland
43rd Australia
45th Wales
59th China
64th Greece
71st Canada
Download:
You can download a PDF version of the list by clicking here.
Wednesday, 13 September 2006
You cant beat the real thing
So the 'sugar free' FIFA\Coca-Cola rankings have been released again, and since they have reworked the scoring system, I for one, cant really argue with the current top 10.
As of 13 Sep 2006:
1 Brazil
2 France
3 Argentina
4 England
5 Italy
6 Netherlands
7 Czech Republic
8 Germany
9 Portugal
10 Spain
OK, maybe England may appear a little high and Germany a little low, but overall the top ten teams are the BEST ten teams in the world, in my opinion.
Debate over the final order will always reign, and to say 'Italy are the World Champions so they should be top' would be a little niave and simplistic in my book.
Previous FIFA rankings have been the height of controversy mainly due to the continued Top Ten appearances of Mexico and USA - both were in the Top FIVE at one point.
Then one day, Sepp Blatter and his wife, Fanny, "woke up" and realised that beating the likes of El Salvador and Haiti isnt really a great yardstick for calculating how good a team really is.
In this 'New Improved' recipe, both Mexico and USA are out of the Top Ten. In fact, the US are out of the Top Twenty and are now ranked 29th. Mexico's fall from grace wasnt as severe, sitting in a respectable 17th.
For the record, Scotland have climbed 6 places this month to 34, Wales slide 6 to 62, the Republic of Ireland fall 5 places to 43 and thanks to their Spanish victory, Northern Ireland climb a massive 14 places to 58.
For the complete list, click here
As of 13 Sep 2006:
1 Brazil
2 France
3 Argentina
4 England
5 Italy
6 Netherlands
7 Czech Republic
8 Germany
9 Portugal
10 Spain
OK, maybe England may appear a little high and Germany a little low, but overall the top ten teams are the BEST ten teams in the world, in my opinion.
Debate over the final order will always reign, and to say 'Italy are the World Champions so they should be top' would be a little niave and simplistic in my book.
Previous FIFA rankings have been the height of controversy mainly due to the continued Top Ten appearances of Mexico and USA - both were in the Top FIVE at one point.
Then one day, Sepp Blatter and his wife, Fanny, "woke up" and realised that beating the likes of El Salvador and Haiti isnt really a great yardstick for calculating how good a team really is.
In this 'New Improved' recipe, both Mexico and USA are out of the Top Ten. In fact, the US are out of the Top Twenty and are now ranked 29th. Mexico's fall from grace wasnt as severe, sitting in a respectable 17th.
For the record, Scotland have climbed 6 places this month to 34, Wales slide 6 to 62, the Republic of Ireland fall 5 places to 43 and thanks to their Spanish victory, Northern Ireland climb a massive 14 places to 58.
For the complete list, click here
Wednesday, 10 May 2006
A few words on the Coach...
Anyone remember the 1974 World Cup? No? Thought not. Well anyway, back then the Finals of the world's greatest football competition were held in West Germany and were a great success. During the opening ceremony, fans in the Olympic Stadium, Munich, were treated to a parade of coaches driven around the athletics track, each one adorned in the colours of each country taking part in the tournament.
Yes, those crazy Krauts certainly know how to party. Anyway, with the World Cup being held in Germany once again this year, the organising committee thought it'd be a spiffing wheeze to have yet another parade of coaches in the opening ceremony. To add to the fun, FIFA organised a competition on its website where fans from around the world were asked to provide a slogan to be displayed on the coach of their national team.
Sadly my entry - "National Express to Heathrow from £18" - wasn't chosen for the England coach, but I'd say they missed a trick there. The advertising revenue alone could have made it worth while.
Instead the winning entry for England's coach was "One Nation, One Trophy, Eleven Lions." Or 23 lions to be exact. Wouldn't be worth having a huge coach for just eleven, would it?
So what slogans will be appearing on the sides of the other national coaches? Let's have a proper snipe at the best of those on offer:
Argentina: "Get up, Argentina are on the move"
The last time they said that was before the Falklands invasion. Be warned...
Brazil: "Vehicle monitored by 180 million Brazilian hearts"
What?!?
Costa Rica: "Our army is the team, our weapon is the ball. Let's go to Germany and give it our all"
Clearly a country looking for a war. Has George Bush been informed?
Ivory Coast: "Come on the Elephants! Win the cup in style"
I'll let you make up your own jokes for that one...
Iran: "Stars of Persia"
More appropriate might have been "Go Nuclear With Iran", perhaps...
Netherlands – "Oranje on the road to gold"
...and banned substances on the way from Amsterdam, presumably...
Spain: "Spain. One country, one goal"
...which is the total number they usually score during the World Cup...
Switzerland: "2006, it's Swiss o'clock"
Er...
Sweden: "Fight! Show spirit! Come on! You have the support of everyone"
Not so much a slogan - more a rambling conversation, really...
And before we descend into even more ardent cynicism, check out the others at http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/06/en/060508/1/6pzk.html or why not submit your own suggestions for other World Cup coaches?
Yes, those crazy Krauts certainly know how to party. Anyway, with the World Cup being held in Germany once again this year, the organising committee thought it'd be a spiffing wheeze to have yet another parade of coaches in the opening ceremony. To add to the fun, FIFA organised a competition on its website where fans from around the world were asked to provide a slogan to be displayed on the coach of their national team.
Sadly my entry - "National Express to Heathrow from £18" - wasn't chosen for the England coach, but I'd say they missed a trick there. The advertising revenue alone could have made it worth while.
Instead the winning entry for England's coach was "One Nation, One Trophy, Eleven Lions." Or 23 lions to be exact. Wouldn't be worth having a huge coach for just eleven, would it?
So what slogans will be appearing on the sides of the other national coaches? Let's have a proper snipe at the best of those on offer:
Argentina: "Get up, Argentina are on the move"
The last time they said that was before the Falklands invasion. Be warned...
Brazil: "Vehicle monitored by 180 million Brazilian hearts"
What?!?
Costa Rica: "Our army is the team, our weapon is the ball. Let's go to Germany and give it our all"
Clearly a country looking for a war. Has George Bush been informed?
Ivory Coast: "Come on the Elephants! Win the cup in style"
I'll let you make up your own jokes for that one...
Iran: "Stars of Persia"
More appropriate might have been "Go Nuclear With Iran", perhaps...
Netherlands – "Oranje on the road to gold"
...and banned substances on the way from Amsterdam, presumably...
Spain: "Spain. One country, one goal"
...which is the total number they usually score during the World Cup...
Switzerland: "2006, it's Swiss o'clock"
Er...
Sweden: "Fight! Show spirit! Come on! You have the support of everyone"
Not so much a slogan - more a rambling conversation, really...
And before we descend into even more ardent cynicism, check out the others at http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/06/en/060508/1/6pzk.html or why not submit your own suggestions for other World Cup coaches?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)